Pet Theories

[Gravy]

Yes I do! Well it's not so much a conspiracy theory but an alternate theory regarding AA77. The conventional wisdom is that AA77's target was always the Pentagon. I'm of the belief that AA77's target was either The White House or The Capital Building (UA193 would strike the other one) and not The Pentagon.

Interesting, but I think it's clear that the primary target was the north side of the Citgo.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Paris Hilton went to jail to protect Lindsay Lohan.

 

[Brainache]

Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes have conspired to conceal the real father of Suri.

 

[BeAChooser]

Have you bothered to read this?

http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Dubrovnik/summary-T43.html

As a matter of fact, I have. And I notice that it doesn't address the issues I raised and leaves out much regarding the crash.

Notice, for instance, that it says the plane disappeared from radar 5 minutes before expected landing. Now according to Aviation Week (April 8, 1996), an AWACS lost contact with the transponder on the plane at the same time. Also voice contact was lost at the same time. The plane was about 8 miles from the runway at this time (yet the crash sight was less than 2 miles away). Any idea why contact was lost when the plane clearly had not yet crashed? Your link gives no explanation. In fact, it doesn't even mention this curious fact.

I also find interesting the postscript about the investigation. It states "the AFI 51-503 investigation was the only one conducted in this case, with the assistance of experts from Boeing, the NTSB and the FAA. The public's right to know all of the information was considered of overriding importance, because of the death of the US Secretary of Commerce." Really ... what was so important, timewise, that they eliminate the Safety Investigation? First, the Safety Investigation normally starts a month or so before the Accident Investigation and they often run concurrently? Would keeping the public in the dark an extra month really be a concern when literally everyone under the sun in the administration was calling it an accident due to the worst weather in a century from the very first day ... and the public was buying it? I find this explanation unconvincing. There were no calls for an immediate answer to what happened.

Given that General Fogelman agreed with the investigators that it was an aircraft mishap, with pilot error as a contributory cause, that is not an assumption, it is a matter of fact.

For those who don't know, General Fogelman was the Air Force Chief Of Staff at the time. He reported directly to President Clinton. In an interview about the crash and investigation on June 7, 1996 (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/brown_crash_6-7.html), he called the investigation a "safety investigation". Now there are two phases in the normal Air Force crash investigation. The first phase is called the "Safety Investigation Board" (SIB). The second is called the "Accident Investigation Board" (AIB). And every Air Force crash investigation prior to the Ron Brown crash except one (a clear-cut case of friendly fire shoot down in Iraq) consisted of both phases.

But in this case, the order came down from the top (that would be General Fogelman) that the Safety Board be skipped. So investigators proceeded to the Accident Investigation phase and the folks who normally conduct a Safety Board were told to go home and unpack their bags. Was Fogelman unaware of this when he called it a "safety investigation"?

Now why do you suppose this is important? Well, the Safety Board is the phase of the normal investigation process which is explicitly charged with "finding the cause". Indeed, DoD Instruction 6055.7 states "The sole purpose of safety investigations is mishap prevention and to determine the cause(s) of accidents." 6055.7 states "Accident investigations are separate from, and independent of, safety investigations. Accident investigations provide a publically releasable report of the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident and include a statement of opinion as to why the accident happened." That statement of opinion, by the way, is supposed to be drawn from facts that come from the SIB. Further, "An Accident Investigation Board investigative team, using Air Force Instruction 51-503, gathers and preserves evidence that can be used to support claims, litigation, disciplinary and adverse administrative actions. AIB reports provide a personal brief to the families of anyone killed in the accident and to individuals seriously injured in the accident." And finally, "Safety investigations normally take precedence over accident investigations, although they may overlap in time. In the event of conflicts between the two investigations regarding access to the scene, acquiring and examining evidence, and interviewing witnesses, safety investigations have priority."

So it's curious that they skipped the SIB (the phase with priority and which is charged with determining the cause) and proceeded immediately to the AIB, when at the time they had absolutely no idea why the plane went down. Let me remind you, this was even a war zone. It could have been shot down. No, in this case, the top brass (that would be General Fogelman) ruled it an accident and directed his staff to proceed from that assumption.

Now consider the final report from the Accident Investigation Board. Isn't it a bit odd that it does not mention many facts that potential litigants and family members might want to know. After all, that is one of it's primary stated purposes ... to make such information available to them. Isn't it?

For example, it doesn't contain the statements of the military pathologists and photographer at AFIP during the examination of Brown's body who said the hole in Brown's head looked like a bullet wound and that he should be autopsied. Brown's family was completely unaware of the controversy surrounding the wound in Brown's head until some of the military officers from AFIP who were involved in the Brown crash investigation blew the whistle (more on that in a moment).

Why doesn't the accident report mention that Colonel Cogswell, the AFIP pathologist who was at the crash site and specifically charged with looking for something that might have caused the wound in Brown's head, reported back to AFIP that he found nothing that might cause it and that the description sounds like a bullet wound and that Brown should be autopsied?

The final report also does not explain the simultaneous the loss of transponder and radio contact when the plane was 8 miles from the crash site. Isn't this curious if the plane just happened to run into a mountain? Now something caused that. Why doesn't the report answer that question? Why didn't Fogelman mention that happening and explain why? These were two seperate systems and either something major in a mechanical way happened on that plane to shut them down or they were deliberately shut off. Yet Fogelman and his "investigators" ignored this?

Nor does the report mention the "suicide" of the maintenance chief who was in charge of a portable beacon at Dubrovnik that the Air Force has admitted disappeared before the crash. He reportedly killed himself (shotgun to the chest) a day or say after the crash over a failed love affair ... before investigators could interview him. The disappearance of that beacon could be significant. Afterall, none other than Aviation Week has indicated in one of their articles on the crash that the behavior of the plane on approach was consistent with being spoofed by such a beacon. Surely potential litigants would want to know those facts. Surely the Air Force would want to address Aviation Week's concern.

The report doesn't mention the fact that the Department of State was told there were two survivors ... not just the one that was reported (a survivor who, by the way, managed to die on the way to the hospital under a doctor's care after surviving for 10 hours at the crash site alone). No, this fact was uncovered by Judicial Watch when they found a confidential chronology of events in the possession of former Secretary of State Warren Christopher which include the following item "Commerce Dept. has heard from Advance Ira Sokowitz in Sarajevo that two individuals have been recovered alive from the crash". I wonder who that other survivor was? I wonder which family didn't get told their loved one survived the crash and died later? Tell us, were General Fogelman and his "safety investigation" team trying to spare that family? If so, why didn't they spare the other one too?

Because of this "accident" report, the families (and lawyers) of the victims never looked any further. Instead the government paid out an average of about 14 million dollars per family. In exchange, they presumably agreed not to pursue further lawsuits (and thereby ask questions). And curiously, the payout agreement stated as the reason for the crash ... weather. Yet the AIB report (and General Fogelman) states that weather played no significant role in the crash.

Did General Fogelman mention any of these things in the interview I linked? No. Instead, he just told the public that it was pilot/crew error and an improperly designed approach procedure. Do you think he was perhaps unaware of these facts? I rather doubt it, if he's as competent as you claim. So what's going on here, DR?

Now remember the military photographer and pathologists I mentioned above? Let's reask some of the questions I posted earlier on this thread and see your response (if you have any). Or will you continue to just ignore them?

1) Why have all the forensic pathologists, both military and civilian, (except for one ... that being the head of AFIP, and who it can be proven lied about both the facts in the case and the opinions of his staff) who have made public statements said the wound in Brown's head looked like a bullet wound and he should have been autopsied? Note that some of these declarations were made DURING the examination of the body at Dover AFB. Pathologist Lt. Colonel Hause, who was considered to be one of the military's leading experts on gunshot wounds at the time, looked at the wound and remembers saying "sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too." By law, if there is suspicion of foul play in the death of a Cabinet member , the FBI is to be called in and an autopsy done. Yet, that didn't happen. And we aren't talking about run of the mill forensic pathologists voicing their concern, but the ones the Air Force itself considered the best of the best, especially when it came to gunshot.

2) Do you know that Colonel Cogswell (mentioned earlier) gave talks at pathology conferences and training classes on "mistakes in forensic pathology" and told his audiences that the frontal head X-ray shows, in the area behind the left eye socket, "multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density", i.e., a "lead snowstorm" from a high-velocity gunshot wound. He also told them that brain matter is visible in the photos and the side X-ray indicates a "bone plug" from the hole displaced under the skull and into the brain ... both contrary to what the Accident report claims? You think he could get away with that at a conference of professionals if there was absolutely no basis for that statement?

3) Why was the body of Sergeant Kelly (the one survivor the government admitted) ordered cremated at Dover before her family was even contacted? That's a violation of regulations, by the way. Was anyone ever punished? General Fogelman didn't say.

4) Why did the Croatian Ministry Of Transportation announced shortly after reaching the crash that the black boxes had been found? The US Air Force in Germany confirmed this. The Department of Commerce log mentioned above even states, "Chief of protocol Misetic called...The flight data recorder has been recovered." Then, a week later, the Air Force claims the plane had no black boxes and that some boxes that looked exactly like the recorders had been found instead. Tell me, what boxes on this plane looked exactly like recorders? I'm just curious.

5) Another problem with the claim that there were no black boxes is that this exact plane, just a week earlier, carried the First Lady and Chelsea and, several weeks before that it carried the Secretary of Defense. Didn't regulations require that the First Lady and Cabinet Members only fly on aircraft with black boxes? Was anyone ever punished for this "violation" of regulations? Or did General Fogelman say to "skip that"?

6) Why did the pathologist (Colonel Gormley) who conducted the examination of Brown's body and who declared it a case of blunt force trauma in the accident report go on TV and lie about the facts in the case? This occurred during a time when a gag order was in place preventing any of the officers who were raising concerns about what happened from speaking. But the black community was asking more and more pointed questions so Gormley was presumably ordered to go on Black Entertainment Television and defuse those questions.

Gormley immediately attacked the pathologists who were saying there should have been an autopsy. He stated that one could rule out a bullet wound because no brain matter was visible in the wound and that the x-rays taken during the examination showed no trace of a bullet injury. He also denied claims by the official military photographer, Captain Janowski, that two sets of x-rays existed.

Then, he was confronted with a photo taken during the examination by Captain Janowski ... a naval photographer, by the way, who is also on record saying the wound looked like a bullet wound. Colonel Gormley ended up admitting that brain matter was indeed visible in the photo, excusing his former statements as a memory lapse. He then admitted that the hole was a "red flag" which should have triggered a further inquiry.

Next he was confronted with a copy of Janowski's photos from the first set of x-ray slides of Brown's head. He immediately changed his story and claimed that a first set of x-rays had been made but were "lost" so that a second set was required. Presumably, it was the second set whose images were put in the Accident Investigation report. It was then pointed out that the Janowski x-rays slides show signs of a "lead snowstorm" (a telltale sign of gunshot), which Gormley didn't refute.

Do you know that Captain Janowski made a sworn statement that Jeanmarie Sentell, a naval criminal investigator who was present at the examination of Brown, told her that x-rays and photographs were deliberately destroyed in the Brown case after a "lead snowstorm" was discovered in the x-rays? Janoski further testified that Sentell said that a second set of X-rays were made "less dense" to diminish or eradicate the "lead snowstorm" image, and that Colonel Gormley was involved in its creation. Interesting, huh?

Do you care to explain this behavior by Gormley? Note that a few years later, Judicial Watch stated in a document submitted to a court that Colonel Gormley now admits that he consulted with other high-ranking pathologists present during the external examination of Ron Brown's body and they agreed that the hole looked like a gunshot wound, "at least an entrance gunshot wound". Furthermore, he confesses that no autopsy was requested based on "discussions" at the highest levels in the Department of Commerce (the folks hiding the fact that there was a second survivor and the department where numerous Chinagate violations under Brown's leadership were alleged), the Joint Chiefs of Staff (that would be General Fogelman) and the Whitehouse (i.e., President Clinton). Care to explain what happened at those highest levels, DR?

7) In January of 1998, the Washington Post reported that the AFIP, in response to the controvery, had convened a review panel of all its pathologists. The article quoted AFIP's director, Col. Michael Dickerson, in saying that the panel came to the unanimous conclusion that Brown died of blunt-force trauma and not a gunshot. But Cogswell refused to attend, following the advice of his lawyer. He says that most of those participating were not board-certified in forensic pathology and of those who were, none had significant interest or experience in gunshot wounds. He says that all of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's forensic pathologists with any expertise in gunshot wounds (Cogswell, Hause and Air Force Maj. Thomas Parsons) dissented from the "official" opinion. Even though Hause and Parsons corroborated Cogswell's version, AFIP spokesman Chris Kelly said AFIP "stands by" Dickerson's claim that the findings were unanimous. Care to explain why the AFIP chief and public relation dweeb lied about the opinions of AFIP's staff?

8) Erich Junger, AFIP's chief forensic scientist and who was also present at the examination, was quoted telling the press that a "very reasonable explanation" for the hole was found "when we looked around the aircraft area itself." However, Junger never visited the crash site and since then, in addition to Cogswell who carried out the search, Gormley has acknowledged that no piece of the aircraft was found to explain the hole. Why did Junger lie about this?

9) Now here's a good question. Where are the original photos and x-rays of Brown's head? It is a fact that they disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP to which only a few top people had access. Hause, along with Dr. Jerry Spencer of AFIP, confirmed this. Yet Gormley and the AFIP heads did not investigate or offer any explanation for how the X-rays or photos disappeared. Gormley simply referred calls to Chris Kelly, who simply said Gormley would not grant additional interviews. Aren't you at all interested why they showed so little interest in this? Maybe General Fogelman can be enticed out of retirement to locate them?

10) Why did the AFIP report that extensive "forensic tests" disproved a bullet theory when Captain Janoski, who was present for the entire examination of Brown's body, did not see any forensic tests, such as those for gunpowder residue? Why did Janet Reno tell the nation that the Justice Department conducted a "thorough review" of the facts in the Ron Brown death investigation and concluded that there was no evidence of a crime when no one from the Justice Department or FBI interviewed the military pathologists or photographer who blew the whistle? Strange, yes?

11) Cogswell, Hause, Parsons and Janowski were all reassigned to other duties outside their areas of expertise and the government tried to limit their contact with fellow pathologists by barring them from conferences. They had their homes searched without a warrant and were given negative job evaluations for the first time in careers spanning over 10 years. For example, Cogswell's evaluation, which was six months late, states that he is "disruptive to the work environment with immature behavior." He has been "unresponsive to counseling," adding that he has used "inappropriate language" and worn "inappropriate dress." Cogswell was even criticized for his manner of driving in the AFIP facility's parking lot. The belated report bears three signatures, including those of Armed Forces Chief Medical Examiner Jerry Spencer and AFIP Director Col. Michael Dickerson, both proven liars. The signatures are not even dated. Do you think this is fair treatment of military officers who only raised what appear to be valid questions?

12) Acting Secretary of the Air Force F. Whitten Peters sent a letter to family members of the air crash victims in December 1997 attempting to debunk the bullet wound thesis. He wrote 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." I wonder, have the families been told what Colonel Gormley now says about the matter?

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." Both statements are demonstrable lies as I've already proven.

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 pictures says that could not be true given that only one photo ... the one of Brown's head ... shows the so-called "defect". If it were a cassette problem, all of them would have had the defect. So why was Peters lying or who was lying to him?

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 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.

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." Any comment? Or will we just hear crickets?

13) And finally, let me point out that military pathologists are not the only ones on record here. Christopher Ruddy showed copies of the x-rays and photos to Pittsburgh coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the nation's foremost forensic pathologists. Wecht, a democrat, said "I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied." Wecht said the identification of almost half a dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver- colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the wound "suggest metallic fragments". He said "little pieces of metal can be found at, or near, an entry site when a bullet enters bone." Wecht said Brown's body was relatively intact. Lacerations were superficial, and other damage to his face and body appeared to be caused by chemical burns that probably would not have resulted in death. X-rays indicated Brown's bones were generally intact, with a breakage of the pelvic ring that Wecht said was survivable. Tell me, do you think Mr Wecht, who was a democrat, was politically biased or a liar in this matter?

Answer those and we will proceed.

Red Herring. I don't answer personal questions because I claim no expertise on this or ANY subject. But I can smell smoke when there is fire. And I know how to locate facts and the opinions of people who are experts. Like those I listed above. And which so far you have complete ignored.

If you don't, I know you are full of crap, and a liar to boot.

Before you call me a liar, why don't you address the above questions about Brown's death? And when you get done (if you even make the attempt), you can be sure I have many others suspicious facts I haven't yet mentioned. Facts which point to motive and opportunity.

 

[BeAChooser]

This is my response to statements Darth Rotor made on another thread in response to my last post on this thread. I reposted that post on this thread after we agreed to move the discussion of Brown back to here.

Brown boarded the T-43 alive.

How do we actually know that Brown boarded the flight? I'm not saying he didn't (he clearly did), but do you know that the passenger manifest for the flight went missing? So we really don't know for sure who was on board that plane that day.

And guess what, Brown wasn't originally scheduled to be on that trade mission. At least that's according to sworn testimony by Nolanda Hill, a Brown confidante and business partner. She swore that he got ordered to join the trade mission after a meeting with Bill Clinton in which he told Clinton that he wouldn't go down alone in the matters where a special prosecutor was about to indict him. Chinagate and campaign finance violation related matters. Matters in which his son and wife had already been indicted. According to her testimony, he asked Clinton to shut down the prosecutor and Clinton said he couldn't. He then told Clinton he was prepared to turn state's evidence to save himself and his family. And after she testified to that effect, the Clinton's DOJ charged her with a tax evasion crime to shut her up. They never did present anything that actually challenged what she claimed about the Brown matter. Curious, huh?

And how about who was not on the flight? Remember Ira Sockowitz? He's the Commerce Department lead man who reported back to Christopher Warren that there were two survivors (rather than the one the government admitted). It turns out he was supposed to have been on the flight but "missed it" for some unspecified reason. Yet he got to the crash site fast enough to be the point man for Commerce. And, by the way, Ira Sockowitz was an associate of John Huang (a known spy and associate of Brown) and is himself implicated in illegally obtaining secret China related documents while at Commerce (another matter never pursued by the RENO DOJ). Brown was just surrounded with fine outstanding folks, wasn't he.

The T-43 flew to Dubrovik

About that destination. Brown left on the trip planning to meet Croatian president Franco Tudjman in Zagreb, but was then informed that the meeting site had been changed to Dubrovnik. Curiously, Tudjman never even bothered to go to Dubrovnik until after Brown's death when Tudjman posthumously honored Brown with a distinguished national award for his efforts to strengthen ties between Croatia and the United States. At least he didn't joke and laugh like Clinton did at Brown's funeral. Was Tudjman's cooperation in this matter rewarded? Perhaps. Three months later Clinton sent another "trade mission" to Croatia and it was judged to be "very" successful. About 7 months after Brown died and a week after Clinton's re-election, Tudjman traveled to Walter Reed Hospital in Washington for cancer treatments ... even though Tudjman had been afraid to travel due to war crimes allegation by the Hague. And by the way, it was his son, Miroslav, who worked in state security who investigated the death of the Dubrovnik maintenance chief in charge of the portable beacon and who ruled it a suicide.

Wheels within wheels.

What is the motive any shooter on board that plane had for comitting suicide.

Why do you assume a suicide?

Remember, we don't really know who was on the plane that day. Perhaps someone whose body wasn't found? Someone who might have disabled the aircraft's communication? That at least would explain losing contact when the plane was still 5 minutes from the mountain. Perhaps that person shot Brown and then left the plane? Or didn't shoot Brown but left the plane? You know that the rear door of the wreckage was found open. Couldn't someone parachute out an open door? Is it only coincidence that the search initially focused on the ocean (where wreckage was reportedly seen but nothing found)?

You have to admit that the delay to search the ocean would have helped a cleanup crew arrive on the scene ahead of rescuers to make sure Brown was dead. Afterall, they'd know where it was going to crash since it was they who would have spoofed the pilot into a mountain using the missing beacon. A NYTimes article (dated 6/7/96) stated "Mr. Perry [Secretary of Defense] said that the Air Force had determined that a radio beacon on the approach to Dubbrovnik airport may not have been working on April 3 ..." Could that failure have been planned to help the spoof work? Afterall, my understanding is that planes landed both before and after Brown's and no one indicated a problem with the beacon. The NYTimes also noted that all the navaids were checked out by an FAA aircraft a few days after the crash and found to have been working.

So maybe a small "cleanup crew" shot Brown after the crash? Remember, Dr Wecht, a noted pathologist, said that other than the head wound, his wounds looked survivable. They certainly would have wanted to make sure he was dead. Right? Is it only coincidence that the Associated Press reported that the first Croatian rescue party to reach the scene (and they were *officially* first to arrive) were met by 3 Americans?

Of course this is all speculation (unlike the hole in Brown's head and the pathologists statements, which I notice you pointedly ignoring), but it does make one wonder. And it does prove feasibility.

Note, other than the crew, these were businessmen sent to explore business development in Former Yugoslavia, and all of them were potential campaign contributors to the Dem party. They had to die in a crash, with the shooter, for What Motive?

Most of the others on the plane were just bit players. If Clinton was desperate enough to silence Brown, the Secretary of Commerce, do you honestly think he'd have cared one wit if a few others were killed in the process? Let's be clear. Ron Brown could bring Clinton and whole adminstration down. Ron Brown was at the focus of much of the campaign finance illegalities that occurred and the conduit for much of the technology passed to the Chinese. Is it only coincidence that Clinton personally changed long established rules so that the export of such technology could be approved by Ron Brown without any other oversight? The agencies who previously did that oversight were all on record as being against the exports that occurred. And in return for those experts and perhaps access to secrets, brown bags full of cash flowed into the Clinton and democRAT campaign coffers. That's a fact.

Brown worked closely with Huang (known Chinese agent), Riady (convicted of millions in illegal campaign contributions and with clear connections to Chinese Intelligence), Chung (also convicted of funneling money from Chinese military intelligence to Clinton's re-election campaign), Middleton (highest Clinton Administration official to plead the 5th in Chinagate), and dozens of other people connected with criminal activities by the Clinton's and DNC. Keep in mind that well over a hundred people took the 5th or fled the country in connection with the Chinagate and campaign finance scandals ... and that is with Reno and the Justice Department seemingly trying to coverup, rather than seriously investigate the matters. If Brown talked, he'd have caused a really serious problem for a lot of these people.

So IF this was a murder, then logically whoever ordered it (Bill Clinton?) needed it to look like an accident and be in a location where the FBI, American police or anyone else they couldn't control wouldn't be involved and where media access could be controlled. A crash in Croatia would fit the bill. Clinton controlled the military and was friendly with the local strongman. Military people generally do what they are told and don't ask questions. Military people who did ask questions can be punished without drawing the attention of an American media that was firmly in the democRATS pockets.

But in any case, you are getting the cart before the horse. Don't you think we should answer the question of whether there was a bullet in Brown's head before focusing on the how and why? It would be easy enough to do. Exhume the body and perform an autopsy. With modern forensic methods, I have no doubt that they'd find evidence of a bullet if that is what killed him. If not, then this whole matter could be laid to rest for good. So do you care to join me in calling for an exhumation and autopsy?

 

[Darth Rotor]

In response to your smoke screen of innuendo and some (understandable for a layman) ignorance.

Notice, for instance, that it says the plane disappeared from radar 5 minutes before expected landing.

Croatia is not La Guardia approach, where you are in a Class A airspace type TCA. Flying in the underdeveloped world is not like flying under the FAA's umbrella.

Whose radar? Which radar?

If you don't know, and if you don't specify, your comment is meaningless. Plus, if you get out an aeronautical chart, and you bother to look at the Dalmation coast, it is mountainous. Mountains interfere with radar coverage.

Now according to Aviation Week (April 8, 1996), an AWACS lost contact with the transponder on the plane at the same time.

How far from the plane, and the airport, was the AWACS? IIRC, the AWACS orbits supporting IFOR were in the Northern and North Central Adriatic.

Unless you clearly state the location of the AWACS in terms of distance from Dubrovnik, that piece of information is irrelevant, and useless for analysis.

Also voice contact was lost at the same time.

Voice contact with whom?

Specify.

In the terminal phase of flight, you typically change freqs from approach or advisory to control, to terminal or tower control. It is not uncommon to have a slight delay, and, if there is an error on the approach plate or in the simple buttonology in the cockpit, it may take time to realize you are on the wrong freq.

The plane was about 8 miles from the runway at this time (yet the crash sight was less than 2 miles away).

Irrelevant pieces of data.

Any idea why contact was lost when the plane clearly had not yet crashed?

See above for a variety of reasons, among others. Croatian airspace was not under the kind of radar environment we enjoy in the US.

Your link gives no explanation. In fact, it doesn't even mention this curious fact.

It is irrelevant to the approach being flown, and the runway environment not gained, and either a MAP attempted or a circling maneuver attempted, at an unfamiliar field, that took the aircraft out of the cleared approach airspace and into the mountain for CFIT. CFIT is not in dispute, by anyone involved in the investigation.

I also find interesting the postscript about the investigation. It states "the AFI 51-503 investigation was the only one conducted in this case, with the assistance of experts from Boeing, the NTSB and the FAA. The public's right to know all of the information was considered of overriding importance, because of the death of the US Secretary of Commerce." Really ... what was so important, timewise, that they eliminate the Safety Investigation?

Based on the political climate at the time, and the logistic problem of beginning two separate investigation at once (in terms of logistics, personnel, and demands from Washington for an explanation, the military and the Clinton crowd were still not on gracious terms at this point in time) the decision to save manpower and complete a non-privileged investigation strikes me as a reasonable one. IIRC, (going on memory) that is what 16th AF recommended up the chain. It happened in their area of responsibility. It was a practical suggestion given the less than pristine conditions, and the less than pristine Status of Forces agreement with Croatia at the time.

First, the Safety Investigation normally starts a month or so before the Accident Investigation and they often run concurrently?

Nope. The run concurrently, and being at roughly the same time, and that is normally due to how perishable human testimony is. The privileged mishap investigation tends to lead the punitive investigation. (That was my experience in conducting mishap investigations.)

Would keeping the public in the dark an extra month really be a concern when literally everyone under the sun in the administration was calling it an accident due to the worst weather in a century from the very first day ... and the public was buying it?

Red herring and irrelevant, and based on your false premise.

I find this explanation unconvincing. There were no calls for an immediate answer to what happened.

That is in error. Investigators were on scene within days, (IIRC, it was less than 48 hours) in difficult terrain. I do not understand your assertion that there was a deliberate delay. Your argument from ignorance is noted.

For those who don't know, General Fogelman was the Air Force Chief Of Staff at the time. He reported directly to President Clinton.

Nope. That is not the chain of command. Want to try again, when you have your facts straight?

In an interview about the crash and investigation on June 7, 1996 (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/brown_crash_6-7.html), he called the investigation a "safety investigation". Now there are two phases in the normal Air Force crash investigation. The first phase is called the "Safety Investigation Board" (SIB). The second is called the "Accident Investigation Board" (AIB). And every Air Force crash investigation prior to the Ron Brown crash except one (a clear-cut case of friendly fire shoot down in Iraq) consisted of both phases.

I will let beachnut handle this, if he wishes. Distinction without a difference, and as noted above, one investigation was done.

But in this case, the order came down from the top (that would be General Fogelman) that the Safety Board be skipped. So investigators proceeded to the Accident Investigation phase and the folks who normally conduct a Safety Board were told to go home and unpack their bags. Was Fogelman unaware of this when he called it a "safety investigation"?

Facts not in evidence. A crash investigation team was on the ground within, IIRC, 48 hours.

Now why do you suppose this is important?

It isn't, but you are pretending it is.

Well, the Safety Board is the phase of the normal investigation process which is explicitly charged with "finding the cause". Indeed, DoD Instruction 6055.7 states "The sole purpose of safety investigations is mishap prevention and to determine the cause(s) of accidents." 6055.7 states "Accident investigations are separate from, and independent of, safety investigations. Accident investigations provide a publically releasable report of the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident and include a statement of opinion as to why the accident happened."

Chaff. Continue. Both boards go into findings of fact, and offering of opinion, of the board, and analysis. The difference is that one can result in punative action, and one (the privileged investigation) cannot, for the purpose of safety critical information not being witheld for fear of being found at fault.

And finally, "Safety investigations normally take precedence over accident investigations, although they may overlap in time. In the event of conflicts between the two investigations regarding access to the scene, acquiring and examining evidence, and interviewing witnesses, safety investigations have priority."

That is true. You get the safety critical info, privileged, non attribution first, and the punative (possibly) investigation is then allowed to interview witnesses. Physical evidence is generally shared as efficiently as time allows.

So it's curious that they skipped the SIB (the phase with priority and which is charged with determining the cause) and proceeded immediately to the AIB, when at the time they had absolutely no idea why the plane went down. Let me remind you, this was even a war zone.

False. Croatia was not a war zone in 1996, Bosnia was. Look at a map. Please. Inform yourself. IFOR was in Bosnia, not Croatia.

It could have been shot down.

By Croatians? What for? They were making money, hard currency, like crazy hosting NATO and US assets in their ports and in Zagreb.

No, in this case, the top brass (that would be General Fogelman) ruled it an accident and directed his staff to proceed from that assumption.

Yes, since Croatia was not a war zone at the time, it was exactly correct to presume that a transport in a permissive environment on a pax mission into a civil airfield was a mishap.

Now consider the final report from the Accident Investigation Board. Isn't it a bit odd that it does not mention many facts that potential litigants and family members might want to know. After all, that is one of it's primary stated purposes ... to make such information available to them. Isn't it?

Argument by innuendo, irrelevant.

For example, it doesn't contain the statements of the military pathologists and photographer at AFIP during the examination of Brown's body who said the hole in Brown's head looked like a bullet wound and that he should be autopsied. Brown's family was completely unaware of the controversy surrounding the wound in Brown's head until some of the military officers from AFIP who were involved in the Brown crash investigation blew the whistle (more on that in a moment).

That does not change the fact that over two dozen people were in a wreck, CFIT, that killed them all on impact. So, your point is?

Why doesn't the accident report mention that Colonel Cogswell, the AFIP pathologist who was at the crash site and specifically charged with looking for something that might have caused the wound in Brown's head, reported back to AFIP that he found nothing that might cause it and that the description sounds like a bullet wound and that Brown should be autopsied?

Did you read the entire report yourself, or are you parroting someone else's argument from ignorance?

The final report also does not explain the simultaneous the loss of transponder and radio contact when the plane was 8 miles from the crash site. Isn't this curious if the plane just happened to run into a mountain?

No, see comments above on radar coverage, or its general lack, in that part of the ICAO airspace in and around the Adriatic.

Now something caused that. Why doesn't the report answer that question? Why didn't Fogelman mention that happening and explain why?

It is nunnecessary. See above.

These were two seperate systems and either something major in a mechanical way happened on that plane to shut them down or they were deliberately shut off. Yet Fogelman and his "investigators" ignored this?

Nope.

Nor does the report mention the "suicide" of the maintenance chief who was in charge of a portable beacon at Dubrovnik that the Air Force has admitted disappeared before the crash. He reportedly killed himself (shotgun to the chest) a day or say after the crash over a failed love affair ... before investigators could interview him. The disappearance of that beacon could be significant. Afterall, none other than Aviation Week has indicated in one of their articles on the crash that the behavior of the plane on approach was consistent with being spoofed by such a beacon. Surely potential litigants would want to know those facts. Surely the Air Force would want to address Aviation Week's concern.

Argument by rumor. I am sure you have a link to an article by a reputable source about the death of a maintenance chief responsible for a beacon? Would this be an American, or a Croat?

The report doesn't mention the fact that the Department of State was told there were two survivors ... not just the one that was reported (a survivor who, by the way, managed to die on the way to the hospital under a doctor's care after surviving for 10 hours at the crash site alone). No, this fact was uncovered by Judicial Watch when they found a confidential chronology of events in the possession of former Secretary of State Warren Christopher which include the following item "Commerce Dept. has heard from Advance Ira Sokowitz in Sarajevo that two individuals have been recovered alive from the crash".

Yet the mishap report concluded all dead on impact.

I wonder who that other survivor was? I wonder which family didn't get told their loved one survived the crash and died later? Tell us, were General Fogelman and his "safety investigation" team trying to spare that family? If so, why didn't they spare the other one too?

Argument by innuendo. Argument from incredulity. Irrelevant.

Because of this "accident" report, the families (and lawyers) of the victims never looked any further. Instead the government paid out an average of about 14 million dollars per family. In exchange, they presumably agreed not to pursue further lawsuits (and thereby ask questions). And curiously, the payout agreement stated as the reason for the crash ... weather. Yet the AIB report (and General Fogelman) states that weather played no significant role in the crash.

That's a vague statement. Fogelman is a pilot. If an all weather aircraft is shooting an approach, and the weather reported is at, or above mins, then one can expect the crew and aircraft to successfully make the approach and land. The significant role, concluded by the board, was in crew error based on the ground track of the aircraft and CFIT, which among aviators, is a well known symptom of a breakdown in cockpit efficiency that leads to flying a plane where you do not intend to fly it.
All in all, we have another PAO talking point taken out of context. It is understandable that that confuses a layman. The weather in theater that day was rather nasty. I do not recall the mishap report stating the weather not a factor, and Fogelman did not say it was NOT a factor. The significant factor found was crew error, upon investigation.

Did General Fogelman mention any of these things in the interview I linked? No. Instead, he just told the public that it was pilot/crew error and an improperly designed approach procedure. Do you think he was perhaps unaware of these facts? I rather doubt it, if he's as competent as you claim. So what's going on here, DR?

You are a novice, and are arguing from ignorance and incredulity, that is what is going on here.

1) g "sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too."

From a professional pathologists, did he state, "That was a gunshot wound!" ? No.

By law, if there is suspicion of foul play in the death of a Cabinet member , the FBI is to be called in and an autopsy done. Yet, that didn't happen.

So perhaps you are suspecting foul play, but most of the pathologists didn't, seeing as how the man died in a plane crash.

And we aren't talking about run of the mill forensic pathologists voicing their concern, but the ones the Air Force itself considered the best of the best, especially when it came to gunshot.

But did any of them state, as professional pathologists might be expected to,

"Died of a gunshot wound." ? Don't think so.

2) Do you know that Colonel Cogswell (mentioned earlier) gave talks at pathology conferences and training classes on "mistakes in forensic pathology" and told his audiences that the frontal head X-ray shows, in the area behind the left eye socket, "multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density", i.e., a "lead snowstorm" from a high-velocity gunshot wound. He also told them that brain matter is visible in the photos and the side X-ray indicates a "bone plug" from the hole displaced under the skull and into the brain ... both contrary to what the Accident report claims? You think he could get away with that at a conference of professionals if there was absolutely no basis for that statement?

And, having said that, did he actually say "this was death by gunshot wound" as a clinical diagnosis? The reason I ask is that had he so diagnosed, he'd have had to formally (and being a Col he could) demanded a reopening of the investigation.

3) Why was the body of Sergeant Kelly (the one survivor the government admitted) ordered cremated at Dover before her family was even contacted? That's a violation of regulations, by the way. Was anyone ever punished? General Fogelman didn't say.

Why do you cremate a survivor?

4) Why did the Croatian Ministry Of Transportation announced shortly after reaching the crash that the black boxes had been found? The US Air Force in Germany confirmed this. The Department of Commerce log mentioned above even states, "Chief of protocol Misetic called...The flight data recorder has been recovered." Then, a week later, the Air Force claims the plane had no black boxes and that some boxes that looked exactly like the recorders had been found instead. Tell me, what boxes on this plane looked exactly like recorders? I'm just curious.

Most aircraft have lots of black boxes. Most avionics boxes are black. I do not know the source of the error in whoever reported an FDR being found at that wreck. IRRC, from my contacts at 16th AF, T-43's at the time did not have FDR's in them, nor did or do most military aircraft. I had heard that this is changing in the AF, not sure how widespread or how fast this change will takek place via logistics channels. I will ask around, this has piqued my curiosity.

5) Another problem with the claim that there were no black boxes is that this exact plane, just a week earlier, carried the First Lady and Chelsea and, several weeks before that it carried the Secretary of Defense. Didn't regulations require that the First Lady and Cabinet Members only fly on aircraft with black boxes? Was anyone ever punished for this "violation" of regulations? Or did General Fogelman say to "skip that"?

Argument from incredulity. Can you cite the reg you are referring to? If so, good. FDR's don't impact safety of flight, they are only useful after a crash, or a safety incident.

6) Why did the pathologist (Colonel Gormley) who conducted the examination of Brown's body and who declared it a case of blunt force trauma in the accident report go on TV and lie about the facts in the case?

Why do you think he is lying?

This occurred during a time when a gag order was in place preventing any of the officers who were raising concerns about what happened from speaking. But the black community was asking more and more pointed questions so Gormley was presumably ordered to go on Black Entertainment Television and defuse those questions.

Politics, or a mishap investigation, what are we talking about here?

Gormley immediately attacked the pathologists who were saying there should have been an autopsy. He stated that one could rule out a bullet wound because no brain matter was visible in the wound and that the x-rays taken during the examination showed no trace of a bullet injury. He also denied claims by the official military photographer, Captain Janowski, that two sets of x-rays existed.

Interesting.

Then, he was confronted with a photo taken during the examination by Captain Janowski ... a naval photographer, by the way, who is also on record saying the wound looked like a bullet wound.

Captain Janowski is a Naval Photographer? Huh? Navy Captain? (O-6) Are you aware that the Navy assigns petty officers as Photographers, under the rating Photographer's Mate? (Or did then. The navy may have merged that rating with JO, journalist. I need to check.) There is something here that does not fit, BAC, and I wonder at what your source thinks it, or he, is saying.

Colonel Gormley ended up admitting that brain matter was indeed visible in the photo, excusing his former statements as a memory lapse. He then admitted that the hole was a "red flag" which should have triggered a further inquiry.

Yes, perhaps, and this is very interesting. It is possible also that 'blunt trauma" was also accompanied by a head hitting a relatively "sharp" object that penatrated the skull, but I AM GUESSING, so this is an intriguing question.

Next he was confronted with a copy of Janowski's photos from the first set of x-ray slides of Brown's head. He immediately changed his story and claimed that a first set of x-rays had been made but were "lost" so that a second set was required. Presumably, it was the second set whose images were put in the Accident Investigation report. It was then pointed out that the Janowski x-rays slides show signs of a "lead snowstorm" (a telltale sign of gunshot), which Gormley didn't refute.

But he did not diagnose a gunshot, did he? What else leaves a telltale? Are you a pathologist? That would be interesting to find out. Are there other materials that leave telltales? Intriguing question. I don't have an answer.

Do you know that Captain Janowski made a sworn statement that Jeanmarie Sentell, a naval criminal investigator who was present at the examination of Brown, told her that x-rays and photographs were deliberately destroyed in the Brown case after a "lead snowstorm" was discovered in the x-rays? Janoski further testified that Sentell said that a second set of X-rays were made "less dense" to diminish or eradicate the "lead snowstorm" image, and that Colonel Gormley was involved in its creation. Interesting, huh?

Indeed. With corroborating evidence, it might lead to something. Was the body exhumed?

Do you care to explain this behavior by Gormley?

No, he didn't work for me. I'd have been very interested to see him, on the basis of only an X Ray, change an analysis of a body without matching all of the other evidence, the way pathologists do, but the confusion about "xrays" is certainly intriguing.

Note that a few years later, Judicial Watch stated in a document submitted to a court that Colonel Gormley now admits that he consulted with other high-ranking pathologists present during the external examination of Ron Brown's body and they agreed that the hole looked like a gunshot wound, "at least an entrance gunshot wound".

Good. "Looked like." None of them, apparently, declared "this is a gunshot wound" which I would think an expert pathologist would be confident to state, and competent to state, if he felt it were a gunshot wound. What these comments do point to is an uncertainty to exactly what that hole was.

Furthermore, he confesses that no autopsy was requested based on "discussions" at the highest levels in the Department of Commerce (the folks hiding the fact that there was a second survivor and the department where numerous Chinagate violations under Brown's leadership were alleged), the Joint Chiefs of Staff (that would be General Fogelman) and the Whitehouse (i.e., President Clinton). Care to explain what happened at those highest levels, DR?

Second Survivor? Source, before I comment on that. IIRC, they all died in the crash.

7) In January of 1998, the Washington Post reported that the AFIP, in response to the controvery, had convened a review panel of all its pathologists. The article quoted AFIP's director, Col. Michael Dickerson, in saying that the panel came to the unanimous conclusion that Brown died of blunt-force trauma and not a gunshot.

But Cogswell refused to attend, following the advice of his lawyer. He says that most of those participating were not board-certified in forensic pathology and of those who were, none had significant interest or experience in gunshot wounds.

He says that all of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's forensic pathologists with any expertise in gunshot wounds (Cogswell, Hause and Air Force Maj. Thomas Parsons) dissented from the "official" opinion.

Even though Hause and Parsons corroborated Cogswell's version, AFIP spokesman Chris Kelly said AFIP "stands by" Dickerson's claim that the findings were unanimous. Care to explain why the AFIP chief and public relation dweeb lied about the opinions of AFIP's staff?

Interesting. You have a disagreement among professionals, and you assume one party lied because they don't fit your preferred interpretation. I don't know what to make of it, and who is right, or wrong, but I do note that these members of AFIP disagree.

8) Erich Junger, AFIP's chief forensic scientist and who was also present at the examination, was quoted telling the press that a "very reasonable explanation" for the hole was found "when we looked around the aircraft area itself." However, Junger never visited the crash site and since then, in addition to Cogswell who carried out the search, Gormley has acknowledged that no piece of the aircraft was found to explain the hole. Why did Junger lie about this?

I have no idea, and I am not sure if this was a lie, or an error, neither, or perhaps both. That question does not prove Brown was shot. It does make one wonder at why Junger made seemingly contradictory statements.

9) Now here's a good question. Where are the original photos and x-rays of Brown's head? It is a fact that they disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP to which only a few top people had access. Hause, along with Dr. Jerry Spencer of AFIP, confirmed this. Yet Gormley and the AFIP heads did not investigate or offer any explanation for how the X-rays or photos disappeared. Gormley simply referred calls to Chris Kelly, who simply said Gormley would not grant additional interviews.

Interestig question. Have you submitted a FOIA request for this information?

Aren't you at all interested why they showed so little interest in this? Maybe General Fogelman can be enticed out of retirement to locate them?

Why would he care? A plane crashed with all hands perishing, and the Air Force looked stupid for getting Ron Brown and 20+ other Clinton friends, business leaders, killed in a pilot error crash. I am trying to understand why he would want to pick at that painful scab.

10) Why did the AFIP report that extensive "forensic tests" disproved a bullet theory when Captain Janoski, who was present for the entire examination of Brown's body, did not see any forensic tests, such as those for gunpowder residue?

I am a bit unclear. A Navy Photographer was present for an entire investigation by pathologists, and is a Navy Captain? Again, I need some better info here, this does not fit. Are you sure Jankowski was not a doctor? A radiologist? This is confusing information.

Why did Janet Reno tell the nation that the Justice Department conducted a "thorough review" of the facts in the Ron Brown death investigation and concluded that there was no evidence of a crime when no one from the Justice Department or FBI interviewed the military pathologists or photographer who blew the whistle?

I am going to guess that she said that when her staff briefed her on the investigation, and she was satisfied that they had been thorough, I doubt she dogged their footsteps through every step of their investigation and staff effort. Of course, I think Janet Reno broke the law in Waco, so I don't care too much for her, but I don't see this as significant.

Strange, yes?

It is? How? The AG has her staffers go look into something, they brief her, she asks questions, and when all is said and done, she is confident they did their jobs. Not strange at all, though also not surprising that her staff might have been sloppier that they ought to have been. It happens.

11) Cogswell, Hause, Parsons and Janowski were all reassigned to other duties outside their areas of expertise and the government tried to limit their contact with fellow pathologists by barring them from conferences.

Proof of that assertion?

They had their homes searched without a warrant and were given negative job evaluations for the first time in careers spanning over 10 years. For example, Cogswell's evaluation, which was six months late, states that he is "disruptive to the work environment with immature behavior." He has been "unresponsive to counseling," adding that he has used "inappropriate language" and worn "inappropriate dress." Cogswell was even criticized for his manner of driving in the AFIP facility's parking lot. The belated report bears three signatures, including those of Armed Forces Chief Medical Examiner Jerry Spencer and AFIP Director Col. Michael Dickerson, both proven liars.

This is a jumble of data points that are not all related. I think I missed how Spencer and Dickerson are proven liars. Cite, to clear that up?

The signatures are not even dated. Do you think this is fair treatment of military officers who only raised what appear to be valid questions?

It does not appear they were punished for raising questions, from the previous passage. A bit of a mish mash, so some clarity would be appreciated.

12) Acting Secretary of the Air Force F. Whitten Peters sent a letter to family members of the air crash victims in December 1997 attempting to debunk the bullet wound thesis. He wrote 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." I wonder, have the families been told what Colonel Gormley now says about the matter?

I don't know. Have you asked them?

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." Both statements are demonstrable lies as I've already proven.

No, you have not proven that, but there is obvious disagreement by pathologists about the wound, which leaves it an open question, it seems.

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."

OK, that is interesting.

This is also a clear lie. The military photographer who took the pictures says that could not be true given that only one photo ... the one of Brown's head ... shows the so-called "defect". If it were a cassette problem, all of them would have had the defect. So why was Peters lying or who was lying to him?

It is uncertain,and a good question. But back to this Navy Photographer: do you mean the Captain?

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 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.

Since they all died in a plane crash, that actually makes sense. Random's post points out the three scenarios, in the other thread, that had to be true for an assassin to be on the plane. Each is equally absurd, unless you subscribe to a suicide assassin who kills brown, and then himself via plane crash to make sure his mission is never discovered. Gun found on site? In the wreckage? More questions, eh?

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." Any comment? Or will we just hear crickets?

An odd turn of phrase, indeed.

13) And finally, let me point out that military pathologists are not the only ones on record here. Christopher Ruddy showed copies of the x-rays and photos to Pittsburgh coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the nation's foremost forensic pathologists. Wecht, a democrat, said "I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied."

Opinion, and a doctor.

Wecht said the identification of almost half a dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver- colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the wound "suggest metallic fragments".

He said "little pieces of metal can be found at, or near, an entry site when a bullet enters bone."

But did he conclude, from that evidence, that this was a bullet wound, or that it might be?

Wecht said Brown's body was relatively intact. Lacerations were superficial, and other damage to his face and body appeared to be caused by chemical burns that probably would not have resulted in death. X-rays indicated Brown's bones were generally intact, with a breakage of the pelvic ring that Wecht said was survivable.

I see. Everyone else in the plane dies on impact, but Brown is superman, and he'd have survived, except for being shot by an already dead assassin? I think I missed the punch line.

Tell me, do you think Mr Wecht, who was a democrat, was politically biased or a liar in this matter?

No, do you? Was he informed of the speed of the aircraft at the time of impact? T-43's don't have airbags, BAC.

Red Herring. I don't answer personal questions because I claim no expertise on this or ANY subject.

I noticed that.

Before you call me a liar, why don't you address the above questions about Brown's death? And when you get done (if you even make the attempt), you can be sure I have many others suspicious facts I haven't yet mentioned. Facts which point to motive and opportunity.

I have addressed it. YOu are either an expert at self delusion, or a fan of propagating a lie. But I agree with you that the disagreement among pathologists is very interesting, and I don't think any of them were wrong to suggest an autopsy. Makes sense to me, except for one small fact.

It isn't too hard to figure out how someone died if they are in a plane crash, and between 130 and 150 knots, perhaps higher if downwind in ground speed, when the plane hits the ground WHAM all of a sudden like that.

Here is an idea.

Get into your car.

Get it going to about 130 knots. (About 145 miles per hour)

Drive into the side of a mountain. (Airbags disabled.)

Tell me how you feel when you get out of the car.

(Kidding, please don't actually do that. It would kill you.)

DR
Cheers.

 

[BeAChooser]

In response to your smoke screen of innuendo and some (understandable for a layman) ignorance.

Well this should be fun. I always like when my opponent starts out claiming to be knowledgeable about this subject and then demonstrates he's the one who is basking in ignorance.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Notice, for instance, that it says the plane disappeared from radar 5 minutes before expected landing.

Whose radar? Which radar?

You mean you don't know? According to the Aviation Week article I cited earlier (see http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/BROWN/h1.gif), the radar at Zagreb is one of two that lost contact. And according to the article, the aircraft at the time contact was lost was at 2400 ft (it crashed on a 2,300 ft high mountain) and was "7-8 mi. from the runway threshold, according to Radic".

Quote:
Now according to Aviation Week (April 8, 1996), an AWACS lost contact with the transponder on the plane at the same time.

How far from the plane, and the airport, was the AWACS?

The Aviation Week article states "Tower controllers cleared the jet to land just before losing radio contact at the same time Zagreb Air Traffic Control and a USAF AWACS aircraft lost sight of the 737 on radar". Tell us, are you suggesting the AWACS was flying below the height of the mountains in the area and just happened to be positioned so it lost the signal at the same time as Zagreb? Isn't it far more likely that the AWACS was at high altitude and would have had line of sight to the plane regardless of the couple thousand foot high mountains in the area?

Unless you clearly state the location of the AWACS in terms of distance from Dubrovnik, that piece of information is irrelevant, and useless for analysis.

I think the following should be of interest:

*********

From http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/BROWN/brown.html

"According to Aviation Week & Space Technology, April 8, 1996, the Dubrovnik tower lost voice radio contact with the aircraft at the same time the aircraft vanished from the screens of the approach radar at Split and an AWACS.

Let's look at the Split radar first. The Split radar watches the approach to Dubrovnik airport, which is where the Ron Brown aircraft was when it dropped off of the radar screen. Contrary to some silly claims made in this newsgroup before, the plane was NOT flying in the mountains. It was out over the water, with open space all around. The radar at Split routinely tracks aircraft through that airspace without problem. If it were normal for the Split radar to lose traffic at that point on the approach path, nobody would have mentioned it because it would be normal and expected behavior. There would be nothing unusual about it. That a comment was made about the target dropping off of the Split radar establishes that it was an unusual event.

The Split radar, like all ATC radar, tracks primarily by aircraft transponder. So, when the Split radar lost track of the Ron Brown aircraft, what was actually lost was the transponder return, as the aircraft was still there, on the approach path, although just starting to veer slightly left.

Now let's look at the AWACS.

The AWACS system is designed to track NON-transpondered targets. Radar "hits" are placed in a computer system that keeps a list and tries to match the returns from the present radar sweep to the returns from the previous sweeps in order to generate meaningful target tracking data for the operators and weapons management systems. Part of that process involves target to target comparisons to make certain that what the computer thinks is target XYZ this sweep is the same target it thought was XYZ last sweep. The total workload on the computer is a power function of the total number of non-transpondered targets being carried in the target list.

If a target has a transponder, the AWACS will track the target using the transponder return, because not only is less computer power needed for a transpondered target, but the workload for non-transpondered targets is reduced.

How do we know that the AWACS was tracking the Ron Brown plane via transponder? Because the AWACS lost it's track at the same time that the Split radar lost it's transponder return. Had the AWACS been tracking the Ron Brown plane via skin-paint, there is no reason for it to lose track of the aircraft at the same time that Split did, while the aircraft was still 7 miles from the crash site.

Had the AWACS not reported losing contact, we could surmise that either the AWACS was tracking on skin paint or the Split radar suffered a momentary failure, but this was not the case.

It is also true that the AWACS could have immediately reacquired the Ron Brown aircraft on skin paint (and it's not known for a fact that the computers did not add it as a non-transpondered target), but the AWACS was there to watch Bosnia, not the Dubrovnik airport.

The two radar tracks, propagating along two different paths, come together at only one common point where a single failure could make the aircraft vanish from both Split and the AWACS, and that is the radar transponder in the Ron Brown aircraft. A failure of the transponder is the only explanation for the Ron Brown plane vanishing from two different radar screens at the same time, while still 7 miles from the crash site and 1/2 mile above the Adriatic sea.

At the same time that the aircraft vanished from the radars at Split and the AWACS, the Dubrovnik tower reported it lost voice radio contact with the aircraft.

This is a third distinct propagation path from the AWACS and Split. In fact, it's direct line of sight from the Dubrovnik airport to the location on the approach path where radio contact was lost. There are no intervening geological features to block the radio signal. The Dubrovnik tower continued to communicate with other aircraft in the area, so the radios in the tower were not at fault.

The data reported in the Aviation Week & Space Technology article shows evidence that TWO SEPARATE SYSTEMS on board the Ron Brown aircraft failed at the same time. The cockpit radios, and the radar transponder.

The radios and radar transponders come together at only one common point where a single failure could make the aircraft vanish from both Split and the AWACS and also lose voice radio contact with the Dubrovnik tower, and that is if the electrical system failed in mid air, while still 7 miles from the crash site and 1/2 mile above the Adriatic sea, on the approach path.

No other explanation fits the facts reported in Aviation Week & Space Technology."

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

I'm curious, DR. Does the Accident Investigation report mention the AWACS and it's loss of contact? Since you claim to know so much I expect you should be able to tell us this. I know that in the public statement given by Fogelman and Coolidge in June when the Accident report was released, they didn't mention the AWACS. Don't you find that a bit odd if one actually was tracking Brown's plane about the time it went down?

Quote:
The plane was about 8 miles from the runway at this time (yet the crash sight was less than 2 miles away).

Irrelevant pieces of data.

How can it be irrelevant that a plane simultaneously loses voice and transponder contact with traffic controllers and 2 separate tracking systems while still 7-8 miles from a runway if the plane was supposed to have just *accidently* run into a mountain only 2 miles from the runway? Please tell everyone what happened to cause that loss of contact while the plane clearly had not yet reached the mountain is supposedly *accidently* hit. Because the source you supplied did not say. And apparently, neither does the Accident Investigation report. Nor has any spokesperson for the Air Force explained this as far as I know. But since you are a self-proclaimed *expert*, I'm sure you can tell us what happened.

It is irrelevant to the approach being flown, and the runway environment not gained, and either a MAP attempted or a circling maneuver attempted, at an unfamiliar field, that took the aircraft out of the cleared approach airspace and into the mountain for CFIT.

You can stick your head in the ground (or water) for everyone to see or you can try to answer the question I just asked. By the way, there is absolutely NO evidence that a "circling maneuver" was attempted. Not a single witness says they saw or heard a plane pass over or near the airport at the time in question. Is that how you are going to approach this issue? Just make things up out of thin air? Maybe you can make up an explanation for what the pathologists said and what the x-rays showed, too.

Quote:
I also find interesting the postscript about the investigation. It states "the AFI 51-503 investigation was the only one conducted in this case, with the assistance of experts from Boeing, the NTSB and the FAA. The public's right to know all of the information was considered of overriding importance, because of the death of the US Secretary of Commerce." Really ... what was so important, timewise, that they eliminate the Safety Investigation?

Based on the political climate at the time, and the logistic problem of beginning two separate investigation at once (in terms of logistics, personnel, and demands from Washington for an explanation, the military and the Clinton crowd were still not on gracious terms at this point in time) the decision to save manpower and complete a non-privileged investigation strikes me as a reasonable one.

See all the hand waving going on, folks?

He claims we were in the midst of a political crisis that would prevent the normal Air Force investigation? What political crisis, DR? Please be specific. Don't just wave your hands.

He claims the Air Force didn't have the manpower and resources to complete two separate investigations. Isn't it odd that we'd always had the resources and manpower prior to this crash ... even when no one nearly as important as the folks on this plane were killed? Why was Clinton and the Air Force pinching pennies on just this one and not the others?

He claims its because Clinton and the Military weren't on good terms. So how does skipping the phase of the normal investigation that's supposed to determine the cause make that relationship any better? Or are you saying the military skipped it just to spite Clinton? Please elaborate. I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm asking questions to clarify what you mean.

(going on memory) that is what 16th AF recommended up the chain.

I'm not willing to accept your "memory" on this subject. If you have a source to prove the suggestion to skip the Safety Board came from someone other than the top brass or the Whitehouse, post it. Don't try to point the blame elsewhere unless you can prove it. Because if you can't, one might just think you are just making up more excuses and doing more hand waving.

Quote:
First, the Safety Investigation normally starts a month or so before the Accident Investigation and they often run concurrently?

Nope. The run concurrently, and being at roughly the same time, and that is normally due to how perishable human testimony is.

Really? Well that's not what this Air Force document states.

http://www.acc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2356 "AIR FORCE SAFETY AND ACCIDENT BOARD INVESTIGATIONS ... snip ... The SIB is convened within days of the mishap and is given approximately thirty days to return its assessment. The SIB will normally spend the first week to ten days gathering factual data at the crash site and taking testimony from witnesses. The next two weeks are used to develop and refine the SIB's findings and recommendations. Finally, the SIB prepares and presents their completed report to the convening authority. The SIB Report is prepared in two parts. The first is purely factual, and the second is privileged, meaning it is to be used solely for mishap prevention and is restricted from release outside the Air Force. ... snip ... The AIB will begin their investigation by reviewing the factual information from Part I of the SIB Report and building upon it to determine the cause of the accident. The accident investigation team is also appointed immediately and will begin their investigation as soon as they can do so without interfering with the safety team. The Board President is a senior pilot (usually a colonel) and the other team members are a maintenance expert, flight surgeon, judge advocate and any other needed specialists. ... snip ... Current as of April 1998"

As stated in the above Air Force document, while the AIB team may be appointed at the same time, they begin their work by reviewing the factual information from Part I of the SIB Report. This implies that report is completed first. So if it takes the SIB 30 days to complete the report (as indicated above), the situation is exactly as I described.

And notice, if you were right that the two efforts are done totally concurrent, then the argument made by the brass that they skipped the SIB to save time would goes out the window. And did it save time? The above Air Combat Command link states: "AIB Reports are completed and released in approximately 60-90 days. This figure includes time after the reports are written for completion of technical review and coordination, then approval by the convening authority (the Major Command Commander), and a briefing to family members (if applicable)." Now consider how long it took the Accident Investigation Report in the Ron Brown Crash to be released? The crash was on April 3, 1996. The AIB report was released on June 7, 1996. So it took over 60 days. Just like it would have anyway.

Quote:
I find this explanation unconvincing. There were no calls for an immediate answer to what happened.

That is in error. Investigators were on scene within days, (IIRC, it was less than 48 hours) in difficult terrain.

Go back and reread the context. I didn't mean investigators didn't arrive quickly at the crash site. I meant there were no outside calls (by families of the victims, political figures, or anyone else) demanding that the investigation be rushed ... that we needed a report more quickly than the usual 60 to 90 days. Like I said, I don't find your explanation convincing.

Your argument from ignorance is noted.

The only ignorance being demonstrated here is by the person who was apparently unaware that the AIB effort normally starts by reading the output of the SIB.

Quote:
For those who don't know, General Fogelman was the Air Force Chief Of Staff at the time. He reported directly to President Clinton.

Nope. That is not the chain of command.

Tell you what. Why don't you tell us how many bodies are between the President and someone in General Fogelman's position in the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Maybe this will help: http://www.jcs.mil/about_cjs.html. It indicates ONE. The Chairman. And after reading that, I hope you won't try to claim the President had no direct contact with Fogelman. That would be strange considering his advisory capacity. That would be strange considering that Fogelman was appointed to the position by Clinton himself. I hope you don't want us to believe that all contact by Fogelman was only done through the Chairman or Secretary of the Air Force or Secretary of Defense? But in any case, your criticism is irrelevant. The point is that Fogelman should certainly have been in the loop when it came to the Ron Brown incident ... in deciding not to conduct an SIB, when punishing the pathologists and photographer at Dover, etc. Don't you think?

Quote:
In an interview about the crash and investigation on June 7, 1996 (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/milit...rash_6-7.html), he called the investigation a "safety investigation". Now there are two phases in the normal Air Force crash investigation. The first phase is called the "Safety Investigation Board" (SIB). The second is called the "Accident Investigation Board" (AIB). And every Air Force crash investigation prior to the Ron Brown crash except one (a clear-cut case of friendly fire shoot down in Iraq) consisted of both phases.

I will let beachnut handle this, if he wishes. Distinction without a difference

I really doubt beachnut's going to, since he ran from this thread days ago after my first fact-filled post. No, I think you are on your own, DR. And what it looks like to me is that you are sticking your head in the ground (or water as the case may be). If it's a "distinction without difference", why did they even bother to have an SIB in the normal Air Force procedure? Hmmmmmm?

Quote:
But in this case, the order came down from the top (that would be General Fogelman) that the Safety Board be skipped. So investigators proceeded to the Accident Investigation phase and the folks who normally conduct a Safety Board were told to go home and unpack their bags. Was Fogelman unaware of this when he called it a "safety investigation"?

Facts not in evidence. A crash investigation team was on the ground within, IIRC, 48 hours.

So what are you claiming, DR? That someone other than the top brass decided to skip the SIB? That the folks who do the SIB and AIB are one in the same? What exactly are you claiming as to how the decision to skip the SIB was made and who conducted the AIB? Why don't YOU put some facts into evidence?

Chaff. Continue. Both boards go into findings of fact, and offering of opinion, of the board, and analysis.

If it's just "chaff", then why does the Air Force regulation covering the investigation process bother to specifically state that one of the two purposes of the SIB is "to determine the cause(s)" of the accident? If the AIB were the one that was supposed to do this, wouldn't it say that instead? All it says is that the AIB is supposed to "state an opinion" about the cause AND Air Force documents also state the AIB members are supposed to take the SIB's work into consideration when doing that.

You can spin till you are blue in the face, but you can't change the fact that in the normal crash investigation, it is the SIB that determines the cause and the SIB is composed of different people and different types of people than the AIB.

Croatia was not a war zone in 1996, Bosnia was. Look at a map.

Actually, Bosnia wasn't at war in 1996 since the peace agreement ending that war was signed December 14, 1995. Even so, things were still very tense in Bosnia. Why don't you look at a map and tell us how far Croatia is from Bosnia. And try to convince us that some of the same ethnic hatreds that drove the conflict in Bosnia weren't present in Croatia. In fact, really make us laugh. Try to tell us Croatia wasn't involved in the war in Bosnia. Because it was. Heavily.

That AWACS was there for a reason. And there were still American troops in Bosnia at the time Brown's plane went down. So maybe someone out there wasn't all that happy with our involvement. The fact is, the government had no reason to rule out an unfriendly act when the plane crashed ... especially since *something* happened to the voice and transponder systems when the plane was still a long way from hitting the mountain.

since Croatia was not a war zone at the time, it was exactly correct to presume that a transport in a permissive environment on a pax mission into a civil airfield was a mishap.

Why doesn't that same logic hold in dozens of other crashes which weren't in war zones but where they still conducted an SIB? Remarkable, isn't it, that the only other case prior to the Brown crash were the SIB was skipped actually was in a war zone.

Quote:
Now consider the final report from the Accident Investigation Board. Isn't it a bit odd that it does not mention many facts that potential litigants and family members might want to know. After all, that is one of it's primary stated purposes ... to make such information available to them. Isn't it?

Argument by innuendo, irrelevant.

This is not innuendo. It is a fact that the purpose of the AIB report is to provide potential litigants with the facts of the case. It is a fact the AIB report in this case didn't do that if it didn't even mention the first set of x-rays that showed a lead snowstorm or the opinion of pathologists at the examination that Ron Brown needed an autopsy because he had a hole in his head with the appearance of a bullet wound. Clearly, potential litigants would want to know such information.

Quote:
For example, it doesn't contain the statements of the military pathologists and photographer at AFIP during the examination of Brown's body who said the hole in Brown's head looked like a bullet wound and that he should be autopsied. Brown's family was completely unaware of the controversy surrounding the wound in Brown's head until some of the military officers from AFIP who were involved in the Brown crash investigation blew the whistle (more on that in a moment).

That does not change the fact that over two dozen people were in a wreck, CFIT, that killed them all on impact. So, your point is?

Are you really this obtuse? If there is a bullet wound in Brown's head, don't you think the Brown family might want to know?

Indeed, when the daughter of Brown learned that military forensic pathologists were suggesting there might be a bullet wound, she wanted answers. To bad she and her family based their decision not to pursue that on a report from an unnamed pathologist that they hired ... a pathologist who seems to have been more than a little "misinformed". Tracy said he told them they found no exit wound which is why she stopped calling for an autopsy. Problem is, the pathologist who examined Brown's body at Dover NEVER looked for an exit wound. So one wonders who recommended Tracy's pathologist.

Quote:
Why doesn't the accident report mention that Colonel Cogswell, the AFIP pathologist who was at the crash site and specifically charged with looking for something that might have caused the wound in Brown's head, reported back to AFIP that he found nothing that might cause it and that the description sounds like a bullet wound and that Brown should be autopsied?

Did you read the entire report yourself

ROTFLOL! Have you? So you wish to claim the report notes what Cogswell says he told AFIP ... that he found nothing to cause the wound, that the wound description sounds like a bullet wound, and that an autopsy should be done? You honestly think that if the report had noted that, the press wouldn't have picked up on it? The press looks for sensationalism and that certainly would be. Yet not one press account anywhere mentions Cogswells statement or Hause's for that matter, as being in the report. So would you like to bet your continued presence on the JREF forum that it does?

You could contract Jack Cashill, author of the book "Ron Brown's Body", and ask him. No need, however, since he says he has read the report in it's entirety and the report doesn't mention the statements of the AFIP pathologists regarding a possible bullet wound and the need for an autopsy. Here:

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

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38962

"So I wrote to the U.S. Air Force in Ramstein, Germany, after its personnel volunteered to waive the four-figure fee for the printing and shipping of the 22-volume, 8,000-page report on the crash of Ron Brown's plane [USAF CT-43A, Boeing 737-200, Tail No. 31149]. Just a week later, a couple of hefty UPS guys came carrying the report up the steps to my office. ... snip ... When the Air Force report arrived at my office, I called in my primary aviation consultant, retired TWA Capt. Raymond Gentile, and gave him the voluminous technical data to review. He, in turn, enlisted another airline pilot to double-check his own analysis. Gentile has prepared a 7,000-word "Technical Report" on the likely cause of the crash that he would like to share with any Air Force personnel or aviation professionals who are interested in exploring the crash and refining his analysis. (Please e-mail me at jcashill@worldnetdaily.com, and I will send it along). Meanwhile, I plowed through the 148 interviews and began integrating Gentile's analysis into the text of "Ron Brown's Body." At the end of the day, the Air Force report proves revealing more for what it omits than what it includes. ... snip ... The most conspicuous evidence of that presumed job is the "apparent bullet hole" found in Ron Brown's head by the military pathologists at Dover. And this brings us to those even more revealing lines of inquiry, the ones conspicuously not pursued in the Air Force report:

• The Air Force was aware of the head wound. Indeed, of the 33 death certificates filed with the report, only Brown's lists a head wound as cause of death, a fact that the military pathologists on site had to share. Still, no questions were raised about the head wound in the report.

• No questions were raised about the life or death of Niko Jerkuic, the Croatian responsible for the navigation systems that were likely sabotaged. Jerkuic showed up with a bullet hole to the chest three days after the crash, only days before the Air Force could interrogate him."

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

Quote:
Nor does the report mention the "suicide" of the maintenance chief who was in charge of a portable beacon at Dubrovnik that the Air Force has admitted disappeared before the crash. He reportedly killed himself (shotgun to the chest) a day or say after the crash over a failed love affair ... before investigators could interview him. The disappearance of that beacon could be significant. Afterall, none other than Aviation Week has indicated in one of their articles on the crash that the behavior of the plane on approach was consistent with being spoofed by such a beacon. Surely potential litigants would want to know those facts. Surely the Air Force would want to address Aviation Week's concern.

Argument by rumor. I am sure you have a link to an article by a reputable source about the death of a maintenance chief responsible for a beacon? Would this be an American, or a Croat?

You can ask Mr Cashill about it when you contact him regarding the AIB report content:

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38421 "The man responsible for the Cilipi Airport's navigation system, maintenance chief Niko Jerkuic, had been found with a bullet hole in the chest two days before the Air Force was to question him. The New York Times would report that a "failed romance" had left the 46-year-old bachelor despondent."

Quote:
The report doesn't mention the fact that the Department of State was told there were two survivors ... not just the one that was reported (a survivor who, by the way, managed to die on the way to the hospital under a doctor's care after surviving for 10 hours at the crash site alone). No, this fact was uncovered by Judicial Watch when they found a confidential chronology of events in the possession of former Secretary of State Warren Christopher which include the following item "Commerce Dept. has heard from Advance Ira Sockowitz in Sarajevo that two individuals have been recovered alive from the crash".

Yet the mishap report concluded all dead on impact.

EXACTLY, which is odd. Why did they leave out what Ira told the Secretary of State? Indeed, if "all" died on impact as you claim, why did the government publically report that one person survived? They even named the person. How could the AIB report have gotten this so wrong? How could Sockowitz have gotten this so wrong? Well perhaps he didn't. And he'd likely be one of those on the inside of any plot. He "misses" the plane. He still gets to the crash site in time to be the point man. And he just happens to be linked to Chinagate in a big way ... i.e., one of those who would have gone down if Ron Brown turned state's evidence.

That's a vague statement.

There was nothing vague about the payout agreement. It stated the reason for the crash was weather. Odd, when the AIB report and Fogelman said weather played an insignificant role.

I do not recall the mishap report stating the weather not a factor.

It didn't. Nor did Fogelman. Both stated weather was not a significant factor. Which makes it unusual that the government would pay out an average of 14 million a person to people with the explanation that weather was the cause. And if you asked the average person on the street the cause of Ron Brown's death, they'd likely tell you that he died in a plane crash due to foul weather (if they knew anything at all). Hardly any would be aware of what the pathologists and x-rays suggested.

Quote:
1) g "sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too."

From a professional pathologists, did he state, "That was a gunshot wound!" ? No.

Your desperation is showing. A expert in gunshot says "it looks like a gunshot wound" and says an autopsy should be done, and you conclude that because he didn't say it "was" a gunshot wound, it wasn't. That sort of illogic deserves a laugh. ROTFLOL!

So perhaps you are suspecting foul play, but most of the pathologists didn't

You are wrong. Even the pathologist who did the examination is now on record saying he made a mistake ... that what the photo and x-ray show are red flags and that Brown should have been autopsied. In fact, while I can name about half a dozen top pathologists who state that Brown should have been autopsied because the wound looked like a bullet wound, you can't name any that don't ... except perhaps the head of AFIP, Mr Dickerson, who I can prove has LIED about the evidence and the opinions of the pathologists who worked under him.

Quote:
And we aren't talking about run of the mill forensic pathologists voicing their concern, but the ones the Air Force itself considered the best of the best, especially when it came to gunshot.

But did any of them state, as professional pathologists might be expected to, "Died of a gunshot wound." ? Don't think so.

Are "professionals" supposed to declare it a gunshot wound without an autopsy to be sure? Don't think so. Your desperation is showing, DR, and frankly I'm beginning to doubt whether you indeed voted for Bush in 96. You say you did but ...

BAC -"2) Do you know that Colonel Cogswell (mentioned earlier) gave talks at pathology conferences and training classes on "mistakes in forensic pathology" and told his audiences that the frontal head X-ray shows, in the area behind the left eye socket, "multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density", i.e., a "lead snowstorm" from a high-velocity gunshot wound. He also told them that brain matter is visible in the photos and the side X-ray indicates a "bone plug" from the hole displaced under the skull and into the brain ... both contrary to what the Accident report claims? You think he could get away with that at a conference of professionals if there was absolutely no basis for that statement?"

And, having said that, did he actually say "this was death by gunshot wound" as a clinical diagnosis? The reason I ask is that had he so diagnosed, he'd have had to formally (and being a Col he could) demanded a reopening of the investigation.

ROTFLOL! As a professional, surely you know that he could not state that as a fact without first performing an autopsy. If you wish to claim that the statements I quoted above by Cogswell suggest he didn't believe there was a strong possibility of foul play, go right ahead. You will only look foolish. You will sink your credibility. That's why I view this topic as a litmus test.

Quote:
3) Why was the body of Sergeant Kelly (the one survivor the government admitted) ordered cremated at Dover before her family was even contacted? That's a violation of regulations, by the way. Was anyone ever punished? General Fogelman didn't say.

Why do you cremate a survivor?

You are making yourself look foolish. I only said the government claimed Kelly survived the crash ... that she was still alive when the first Croatians arrived at the crash site. Not that she didn't die later from injuries. Now go back and address what I noted. Why was her body cremated without consulting her family? I understand that's a violation of regulations. Anyone punished?

Most aircraft have lots of black boxes. Most avionics boxes are black.

My, you are such an *expert*. ROTFLOL! But surely you know that while most of the avionics in an aircraft are in black boxes, the flight and voice data recorders are not. They are usually red, orange or yellow, or at the very minimum have bright colored markings on them, so they look quite unique and can be easily seen. So why don't you tell us what other boxes in that aircraft were that color or had similar markings? Go ahead, since you have so many "contacts" at the 16th AF.

Can you cite the reg you are referring to?

Not off hand. But this was reported as being a regulation.

Quote:
6) Why did the pathologist (Colonel Gormley) who conducted the examination of Brown's body and who declared it a case of blunt force trauma in the accident report go on TV and lie about the facts in the case?

Why do you think he is lying?

I clearly indicated why. Do you have problems reading? Or is this just more of that obtuse behavior tactic I've noticed?

Quote:
Then, he was confronted with a photo taken during the examination by Captain Janowski ... a naval photographer, by the way, who is also on record saying the wound looked like a bullet wound.

Captain Janowski is a Naval Photographer? Huh? Navy Captain? (O-6) Are you aware that the Navy assigns petty officers as Photographers, under the rating Photographer's Mate?

My mistake. You are correct. Her rank was Chief Petty Officer according to my various sources. I misremembered what the sources said. And lest you claim I misremembered other details, here are some of those sources. What Janoski has to say is so "interesting" that perhaps you should read a few of them.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16578 " Navy Chief Petty Officer Kathleen Janoski, head of AFIP's forensic photography unit, was present when Gormley examined Brown's body. She recently told WorldNetDaily that she did not believe a thorough examination took place."

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/11/14/83510 "As Chief Petty Officer Kathleen Janoski, then a photographer for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, and a member of the United States Navy for twenty-two years, tells it she looked at Ron Brown's skull and exclaimed "Look at the hole in Ron Brown's head. It looks like a gunshot wound." Janoski's off-hand assertion caused all heads to turn to Brown's body."

http://www.aim.org/aim_report/A3612_0_4_0_C/ "Kathleen Janoski, the Navy chief petty officer who photographed Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown's body at Dover Air Force Base after he died in a mysterious plane crash in Croatia in April, 1996, told the AIM conference the shocking story of how she was relieved of her duties because photographs she had taken had revealed evidence that Brown may have been shot. Kathleen Janoski said she hadn't come to any conclusions about whether Brown was murdered or not, but she was certain that senior officers at the base didn't want the questions answered." (also http://www.aim.org/aim_report/A3624_0_4_0_C/)

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/4/26/01704 "KATHLEEN JANOSKI DESCRIBES COVER-UP IN RON BROWN INVESTIGATION, by Carl Limbacher, Washington Post, April 26, 1998. ... snip ... Chief Petty Officer Janoski, you may recall, came forward to The Pittsburgh Tribune Review's Christopher Ruddy last January, joining three other senior officers with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology who report a series of disturbing developments in the case of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown's death."

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a2b498c045c.htm "The Botched Ron Brown Investigation, An Interview with AFIP Forensic Photographer Kathleen Janoski, The Laissez Faire City Times,
By Wesley Phelan ... snip ... A commotion erupted when Chief Petty Officer Kathleen Janoski said "Wow, look at the hole in Ron Brown's head.""

But he did not diagnose a gunshot, did he? What else leaves a telltale? Are you a pathologist? That would be interesting to find out. Are there other materials that leave telltales? Intriguing question. I don't have an answer.

So given all the pathologists saying it at least looked like a bullet wound, what's the harm in an exhumation and autopsy to be sure it isn't?

Quote:
Do you know that Captain Janowski made a sworn statement that Jeanmarie Sentell, a naval criminal investigator who was present at the examination of Brown, told her that x-rays and photographs were deliberately destroyed in the Brown case after a "lead snowstorm" was discovered in the x-rays? Janoski further testified that Sentell said that a second set of X-rays were made "less dense" to diminish or eradicate the "lead snowstorm" image, and that Colonel Gormley was involved in its creation. Interesting, huh?

Indeed. With corroborating evidence, it might lead to something. Was the body exhumed?

The x-rays, photos and statements of half a dozen forensic pathologists are corroborating evidence. And it hasn't led to anything because Clinton controlled the military and Bush doesn't want to stir the pot (for whatever reason). No, his body has not been exhumed. What would be the harm in doing it?

Quote:
Do you care to explain this behavior by Gormley?

No, he didn't work for me. I'd have been very interested to see him, on the basis of only an X Ray, change an analysis of a body without matching all of the other evidence, the way pathologists do, but the confusion about "xrays" is certainly intriguing.

Yeah ... "intriguing".

None of them, apparently, declared "this is a gunshot wound" which I would think an expert pathologist would be confident to state, and competent to state, if he felt it were a gunshot wound.

No competent pathologist would make that declaration without an autopsy. Agree?

What these comments do point to is an uncertainty to exactly what that hole was.

Yes. And what do you do when you are uncertain? AUTOPSY.

Second Survivor? Source, before I comment on that.

Sure.

http://www.newsmax.com/brown_docs/ "The confidential Ron Brown crash file was relased two weeks ago exclusively to NewsMax.com by Judicial Watch, the only legal entity still investigating Brown's role in the Clinton administration's fundraising scandal. Since our initial reports, no other media outlet has dared pursue this story. ... snip ... A Commerce Department official reports from Sarajevo that "two individuals have been recovered alive from the crash" -- page 6."

http://www.newsmax.com/brown_docs/page6.shtml "2058 Commerce Dept. has heard from advance Ira Sokowitz in Sarajevo that two individuals have been recovered alive from the crash. No confirmation at this time."

IIRC, they all died in the crash.

On impact, as you previously claimed? How can that be when the military was telling the press someone survived the impact but fortunately there was a Croatian doctor at the crash site? Here is a portion of the DoD News Briefing on June 7, 1996 at 12:30 pm when the AIB report was released (http://cryptome.org/ct43-060796.htm). The following is a direct quote from the portion of the briefing given by General Coolidge: "At around 10:30 p.m., Croatian police informed rescuers they had found a survivor with serious injury. Because the Croatians feared causing additional injury they requested NATO helicopter support to evacuate the Air Force crew member from the mountain." And you say they all died on impact?

You have a disagreement among professionals, and you assume one party lied because they don't fit your preferred interpretation.

I say Dickerson lied because ALL the pathologists (except Dickerson) whose names we know (go ahead, name someone else ... I bet you can't) say the wound looked like a bullet wound and that Brown should have been autopsied. Dickerson clearly lied about the evidence in the case and the opinions of his staff. It is simply untrue that the findings of AFIP's staff was unanimous when Cogswell, Hause and Parsons (arguably the three most qualified when it came to bullet wounds) disagreed with the official view. And they've done it in writing, in multiple venues and even under oath. Has Dickerson ever been under oath? No.

Here's another article proving that AFIP's management was attempting damage control with the bogus meeting reported by the Washington Post and lying to do it:

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/1/11/32000 " On Friday, Washington Post reporter Michael Fletcher wrote that Cogswell's claims had prompted AFIP to convene an internal panel of its pathologists to review the Brown matter. Fletcher reported that the panel "unanimously backed" the findings of Col. William Gormley, the Air Force pathologist who examined Brown's body and concluded that he died of blunt force injuries during the plane crash. Gormley also ruled that the circular wound was not caused by a gunshot. The Post article quoted Gormley as stating that "there is no doubt in anybody's mind" that Brown died of blunt force injuries and that he had not been shot. Citing AFIP's director, Col. Michael Dickerson, Fletcher reported that "the group (of pathologists) issued a report reaffirming the initial Air Force conclusion that Brown's death was accidental ..." Fletcher's report also indicated that Hause had changed his mind and was now affirming Gormley's findings. Contradicting these claims are Hause and Parsons, both of whom participated in AFIP's internal review. Both officers concluded that Gormley's findings simply could not be substantiated, that the possibility of a gunshot could not be ruled out, and that an autopsy should have been conducted. None was. "Fletcher's article in the Washington Post, in which Colonel Dickerson said I concurred in this `unanimous' finding, contains a lie," Hause told the Tribune-Review. The Post report Friday morning left him "fuming," Hause said, and that evening he prepared a point-by-point statement countering AFIP's claims. Hause said he was never informed a report was to be issued on the Brown case, nor did he ever see the report that AFIP claims he signed off on. On Friday he asked the Armed Forces Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Jerry Spencer, for a copy of the report. Spencer said he would not release it, and the decision on whether to release it rested with Dickerson. Neither Spencer nor Dickerson could be reached for comment Saturday." ... snip ... 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." ... snip ... Parsons, another participant in the internal review, told the Tribune-Review that he, too, could not back Gormley's findings. Reached at his home Saturday, the Air Force major also said he had never reviewed nor signed off on any such report, and had no idea what the report contained. Parsons said the statement in Friday's Post that all panelists had agreed with Gormley's findings "was not true."

THAT is why I call Dickerson and AFIP's managment liars.

I have no idea, and I am not sure if this was a lie, or an error, neither, or perhaps both. That question does not prove Brown was shot. It does make one wonder at why Junger made seemingly contradictory statements.

Here's more from Junger:

" The hole "got our attention at first," Junger told the Tribune-Review.
The now-retired chief forensic scientist said concern about the wound quickly dissipated because "we figured out what it was. Again, it was nothing earth-shattering." Junger said that a "very reasonable explanation" for the hole was found "when we looked around the aircraft area itself," indicating that some piece of the aircraft or its contents had hit Brown's head and created the wound."

Yet the pathologist who "looked around the aircraft" said he did not find an explanation for the hole. And a hole that has the best experts on gunshot at AFIP calling for an autopsy is "nothing earth-shattering"? (/sarcasm)

Quote:
9) Now here's a good question. Where are the original photos and x-rays of Brown's head? ... snip ...

Interestig question. Have you submitted a FOIA request for this information?

Asking for what? A copy of material that they admit is gone? A response telling me they didn't look for the reason the material disappeared? Seems to me that your response is just a tactic to deflect the discussion and not express any concern since clearly reporters (who are better situated than little ol' me) did attempt to get this question addressed and failed due to the stonewall AFIP erected.

Quote:
Aren't you at all interested why they showed so little interest in this? Maybe General Fogelman can be enticed out of retirement to locate them?

Why would he care? A plane crashed with all hands perishing, and the Air Force looked stupid for getting Ron Brown and 20+ other Clinton friends, business leaders, killed in a pilot error crash. I am trying to understand why he would want to pick at that painful scab.

Because maybe it would prove the crash wasn't the Air Force's fault at all? Although involvement in the coverup afterwords would be a problem ... but then you've been telling us that Fogelman is such a outstanding, trustworthy person that I'm sure that wouldn't sway him. He'd want to know the truth. Right?

Quote:
BAC - "10) Why did the AFIP report that extensive "forensic tests" disproved a bullet theory when Captain Janoski, who was present for the entire examination of Brown's body, did not see any forensic tests, such as those for gunpowder residue?"

I am a bit unclear. A Navy Photographer was present for an entire investigation by pathologists, and is a Navy Captain? Again, I need some better info here, this does not fit. Are you sure Jankowski was not a doctor? A radiologist? This is confusing information.

CPO (satisfied?) Janoski was the senior AFIP photographer. She had served as chief of forensic photography for 2 1/2 years, and had, by her account, handled numerous cases involving either gunshots or plane crashes. She received training at the FBI Academy and elsewhere in observing, identifying and photographing gunshot and other wounds. I think it is safe to say she was familiar with the type of forensic tests in question.

"The AFIP keeps saying that extensive forensic tests were conducted," says Janoski. "Well, I'm here to tell you that there were no forensic tests done at all. I was there from start to finish of the external examination. Dr. Gormley did not thoroughly look for an exit wound, nor did he have me photograph either the presence or the absence of an exit wound."

Now, of course, if you want to quote the portion of the Accident Investigation report that describes the forensic tests that were done, go ahead. That might convince me she was lying. But I bet you can't and don't.

http://www.aim.org/aim_report/A3612_0_4_0_C/ "CBN's Dale Hurd asked, "Is Cogswell's and Janoski's punishment by the AFIP simply because they shined the light on shoddy work and embarrassed the Pentagon? Or is there something more?" Hurd found that the AFIP was continuing to lie. In a statement, it claimed that extensive forensic tests were conducted on the body. Janoski said that was completely false. She said her faith in the Navy was badly shaken, not only by her treatment, but by the refusal to do an autopsy and lying about it, and by the destruction of the head x-ray."

Quote:
Why did Janet Reno tell the nation that the Justice Department conducted a "thorough review" of the facts in the Ron Brown death investigation and concluded that there was no evidence of a crime when no one from the Justice Department or FBI interviewed the military pathologists or photographer who blew the whistle?

I am going to guess that she said that when her staff briefed her on the investigation, and she was satisfied that they had been thorough, I doubt she dogged their footsteps through every step of their investigation and staff effort.

You seem desperate to avoid the issue. If the head of the DOJ states that they conducted a "thorough review" yet no one from the DOJ even bothered to contact the whistleblowers making the allegations, have they conducted a thorough review? Isn't that statement then just a lie to keep folks from asking further questions? What else are we to make of it? Perhaps Reno should be put under oath and asked to provide specific details.

Quote:
Strange, yes?

It is? How? The AG has her staffers go look into something, they brief her, she asks questions, and when all is said and done, she is confident they did their jobs. Not strange at all,

Are you really this naive? Or is it something else?

11) Cogswell, Hause, Parsons and Janowski were all reassigned to other duties outside their areas of expertise and the government tried to limit their contact with fellow pathologists by barring them from conferences.

Proof of that assertion?

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/4/26/01704 "GRANT: Now initially you had declined to be interviewed but you changed your mind shortly before a gag order was issued and you came forward, you said, because the AFIP had failed to properly investigate possible wrongdoing by it's own officials in the Brown case. And because of the way the military treated two AFIP pathologists. We have talked to Lt. Col Steve Cogswell and Lt. Col. David Hause. Now, I understand that after they both went public, bad things happened to them. JANOSKI: Yes, yes. We were all supposed to go to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences meeting in February. We had our tickets, we had our reservations, we'd paid our registration fees. And right before we were supposed to leave, the director of AFIP canceled our orders immediately. Also, Dr. Cogswell was forbidden to lecture, forbidden to go on trips. Cogswell, Hause and Parsons were no longer permitted to do any autopsies. And also Dr. Cogswell was kicked out of his office at the same time I was. And he's been re-assigned, they re-assigned him to oral pathology. So they have a medical examiner working with a bunch of dentists right now. He's very ill-equipped to work in that area. So essentially what they're doing is something that's typical in punishing a whistleblower. They're setting him up for failure."

http://www.louisianaweekly.com/weekly/news/articlegate.pl?20070409n "In my book, "No I Won't Shut up," I tell of a conversation I had with one of those experts, Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell, shortly before he was officially muzzled. Dr. Cogswell was the AFIP deputy medical examiner who asked his supervisors to perform the autopsy. "This whole think stinks," he told them. Shortly after his forthrightness, Cogswell told me, "I have been re-assigned. I have been demoted because of my reporting on Brown. Sometimes I feel my life is endangered, but people only get 'disappeared' if they are going to tell something, I have already talked and I have no new revelations, so the cat is already out of the bag. Without an autopsy it is just as irresponsible to say the wound was caused by a bullet as to say it was not."

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16578 "Ron Brown whistleblowers pay price, Careers jeopardized with transfers, bad reviews ... snip ... For Janoski and the three pathologists, life in the military has changed greatly since they went public. Cogswell, for the first time in his 10-year career in the Air Force, has been given a negative performance evaluation. Cogswell received his annual rating late last month -- more than six months late. The evaluation states that Cogswell is "disruptive to the work environment with immature behavior." He has been "unresponsive to counseling," it continues, adding that he has used "inappropriate language" and worn "inappropriate dress." Cogswell is even criticized for his manner of driving in the AFIP facility's parking lot. The belated report bears three signatures, including those of Armed Forces Chief Medical Examiner Jerry Spencer and AFIP Director Col. Michael Dickerson. The signatures are not dated. Cogswell told WorldNetDaily the negative evaluation has ended the possibility of future promotion. In previous annual performance reviews Cogswell shared with WorldNetDaily, he received nothing but sterling evaluations -- including reviews signed by Dickerson and Gormley. Just a year earlier, Dickerson and Gormley noted in an evaluation that Cogswell had been cited as "the number one forensic pathology consultant in the Department of Defense." The report also stated that Cogswell was "an extremely capable officer" who was given "the toughest assignments." "His professional acumen is incomparable," the report continued, adding that Cogswell was "an exemplary officer and outstanding physician." In an evaluation in 1995 signed by Gormley and Dickerson, Cogswell was called AFIP's "expert on gunshot wounds." Dickerson recently ordered Cogswell, Hause, Parsons and Janoski to cancel their planned attendance at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences conference earlier this month in San Francisco. The annual meeting is the most important of seminars attended by AFIP staff for professional development. All other AFIP staff were permitted to attend. Just weeks after Janoski went public about the Brown case, she and her staff of three photographers were told to vacate their offices in the AFIP medical examiner's facility in Rockville, Md. The photography unit was relocated to another AFIP office in Washington, D.C. Chris Kelly, spokesman for AFIP, denied that any form of retribution has taken place. He said Cogswell's negative evaluation was "not a retaliation" since it covered a period before Cogswell made his comments on Brown. Kelly confirmed that trips were canceled to the American Academy conference, but said the reason was "an internal matter for the institute." He said Janoski's unit was transferred because "they have a lot of skills they need to keep up with," and added that the unit would continue doing photography work for AFIP. Cogswell told WorldNetDaily he is "absolutely certain" AFIP actions were caused by his comments on the Brown case. Janoski said those actions indicate the military is fearful about the controversy. Hause previously described the situation at AFIP as a "Salem atmosphere" referring to the witchcraft trials that took place in Salem, Mass."

This is a jumble of data points that are not all related. I think I missed how Spencer and Dickerson are proven liars. Cite, to clear that up? ... snip ... It does not appear they were punished for raising questions, from the previous passage. A bit of a mish mash, so some clarity would be appreciated.

Why don't you read a few of the above linked articles. They should clear up your confusion.

Quote:
12) Acting Secretary of the Air Force F. Whitten Peters sent a letter to family members of the air crash victims in December 1997 attempting to debunk the bullet wound thesis. He wrote 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." I wonder, have the families been told what Colonel Gormley now says about the matter?

I don't know. Have you asked them?

Nice deflection to avoid addressing the issue. You know darn well that the government never bothered to tell the families what Gormley said later on ... that Brown's wound was a red flag and he should have been autopsied.

Quote:
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." Both statements are demonstrable lies as I've already proven.

No, you have not proven that, but there is obvious disagreement by pathologists about the wound, which leaves it an open question, it seems.

I disagree. I think I have proven the two statements are outright lies. The question is now whether you will acknowledge there's a serious problem here or whether you'll go on repeating the nonsense that since none of the pathologists said with 100% certainty "that's a bullet wound" we can ignore their statements.

Quote:
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."

OK, that is interesting.

And an obvious lie.

Quote:
This is also a clear lie. The military photographer who took the pictures says that could not be true given that only one photo ... the one of Brown's head ... shows the so-called "defect". If it were a cassette problem, all of them would have had the defect. So why was Peters lying or who was lying to him?

It is uncertain,and a good question. But back to this Navy Photographer: do you mean the Captain?

Yes, anything to avoid actually dealing with whether to believe the chief photographer at AFIP at the time on this matter or some unnamed "examiners" that Peters, already a proven liar, mentions. You know, you could have easily put the name Janoski into your browser and found that she wasn't a Captain. But then you'd have nothing to keep using as a distraction.

Quote:
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 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.

Since they all died in a plane crash, that actually makes sense.

First of all, you said they all died "on impact". That's a falsehood and if you repeat it in the next post, I'll call you a liar.

Second, Peters says "had there been suspicion". Well if pathologists at Dover and at the crash site are both saying something looks/sounds like a bullet wound and that an autopsy should be done, don't you think that suggests "suspicion"? And we have Gormley on record admitting that the reasons he gave for ruling it blunt force trauma are false. You think he didn't see the first xray showing the bone plug driven into the brain and displaced to the side? You really think he didn't see the brain matter in the hole during the examination? Are you that naive? Or is it something other than being naive?

Random's post points out the three scenarios, in the other thread, that had to be true for an assassin to be on the plane. Each is equally absurd

If you want to discuss Random's argument, repost it here and I will be happy to do so. Apparently, he didn't have enough confidence in being able to defend it to do so. I'll start by listing a plausible scenario or two that he forgot to list. Frankly, I find your wanting to speculate about scenarios instead of seriously considering what the pathologists and x-ray indicate a case of putting the cart before the horse in a lame attempt to dismiss the allegation.

Gun found on site? In the wreckage? More questions, eh?

Apparently you aren't even aware that the gun of Brown's bodyguard was never found. And why would an assassin who shoots Brown leave a gun in the first place?

Quote:
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." Any comment? Or will we just hear crickets?

An odd turn of phrase, indeed.

It's more than odd. It's indicative of what's going on here.

Quote:
13) And finally, let me point out that military pathologists are not the only ones on record here. Christopher Ruddy showed copies of the x-rays and photos to Pittsburgh coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the nation's foremost forensic pathologists. Wecht, a democrat, said "I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied."

Opinion, and a doctor.

No, as a matter of fact, it is the EXPERT opinion of one of America's most renowned forensic pathologists ... one who has conducted over 14,000 autopsies ... many involving bullet wounds.

Quote:
Wecht said the identification of almost half a dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver- colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the wound "suggest metallic fragments".
Quote:
He said "little pieces of metal can be found at, or near, an entry site when a bullet enters bone."

But did he conclude, from that evidence, that this was a bullet wound, or that it might be?

Of course not. He's a professional and would insist on an autopsy before making such a statement. Your argument is a strawman.

Quote:
Wecht said Brown's body was relatively intact. Lacerations were superficial, and other damage to his face and body appeared to be caused by chemical burns that probably would not have resulted in death. X-rays indicated Brown's bones were generally intact, with a breakage of the pelvic ring that Wecht said was survivable.

I see. Everyone else in the plane dies on impact, but Brown is superman, and he'd have survived, except for being shot by an already dead assassin? I think I missed the punch line.

There you go again, saying they all died "on impact" when even the general in charge of the AIB told the public that a survivor was discovered when the Croatians reached the crash site. I guess you know so little about this incident you didn't even know that?

You perform to expectations. Brown was definitely injured but one of the top forensic pathologists in the US looks at the examination report and photos of his injuries and concludes that except for the wound in the head, the injuries were survivable ... and you just ignore it. I see. Is that because you think you are the expert in this subject too? I guess that's the punch line to your comment. You think you know more about forensic pathology than Cyril Wecht. ROTFLOL!

Was he informed of the speed of the aircraft at the time of impact? T-43's don't have airbags, BAC.

They have seat belts. And are you claiming that noone has ever survived an impact at 140 knots? You realize, don't you that the rear portion of the aircraft was basically intact and the plane didn't do a Flight 93 but hit the mountain slope at a shallow angle. Perhaps Brown was seated in that back section, chatting with Sergeant Kelly? Or his seat was ejected during the crash and the seat protected him from immediate death?

Quote:
Red Herring. I don't answer personal questions because I claim no expertise on this or ANY subject.

I noticed that.

Unlike you, I don't have to claim expertise when I can rely on the stated opinions of verifiable experts like Cyril Wecht and all the other forensic pathologists who came forward. I don't have to claim expertise when I can rely on government documents that state what should have been done in the investigation. Besides, how do we really know you are who you claim to be anyway? People can claim anything on the internet. And often get away with identity deception. In a debate, I'd rather rely on sourced material we can both get access to and third party expertise.

But I agree with you that the disagreement among pathologists is very interesting, and I don't think any of them were wrong to suggest an autopsy. Makes sense to me, except for one small fact. It isn't too hard to figure out how someone died if they are in a plane crash, and between 130 and 150 knots

Still having trouble dealing with what the pathologists and photos/x-ray show? Huh? ROTFLOL!

Get it going to about 130 knots. (About 145 miles per hour)

Drive into the side of a mountain. (Airbags disabled.)

Tell me how you feel when you get out of the car.

Your scenario uses strawman logic. First, the plane hit a mountain sloping away from its flight path. It didn't plow into the mountain and come to a rest in 5 feet. The glancing impact allowed it to gradually decelerate and indeed the rear of the plane was intact. Second, the passengers were probably wearing seatbelts at the time since they thought they were landing. Seat belts have been known to prevent injuries in high speed impacts. And third, no one claimed that Brown was uninjured and walked away. So your "except for one thing" is nothing but a strawman.

And your credibility is looking might thin.

 

[deep]

Mine is the death of Ron Brown.

This has already been debunked -- the Justice Department conducted a thorough review of the facts, and determined that no crime was committed.

Regarding the lack of autopsy, it was already obvious what the cause of death was (plane crash), so why waste everybody's time by doing a meaningless autopsy? Remember, this was investigated by hardworking people, like you and I, so if there was any wrongdoing whatsoever, the investigators would have come forward with that information and included it in the official report.

If there really was evidence of a bullet wound, why wouldn't this story be on the front page of every newspaper in the country? This sort of thing would be major news.. so why hasn't it been picked up by any major media outlet?

<cartman voice>Deee-bunked.</cartman voice>

If you didn't already guess, I don't actually know anything about this man's death; however, now you know how silly these arguments sound from the other side.​

 

[RedIbis]

Although I've been labeled a "twoofer" here, which I fully expected, since I have some questions and have noticed contradictions in official explanations, ironically; I don't have any pet "conspiracy theories."

I'm not in a position to comment about the moon landing, jfk, aliens, or any other common conspiracy theories.

The one conspiracy theory I do advance without any evidence is Curt Shilling's bloody sock.

I believe that was some of Manny's red toenail polish.

 

[BeAChooser]

BAC - "Mine is the death of Ron Brown."

This has already been debunked -- the Justice Department conducted a thorough review of the facts, and determined that no crime was committed.

ROTFLOL! Guess you didn't bother to read the rest of the thread.

How could the DOJ have conducted a thorough review if they didn't even interview the pathologists who blew the whistle and say the wound in Brown's head looked like a bullet wound and he should have been autopsied?

How could they have conducted a thorough review if they didn't even interview the photographer who took the x-rays and photos that prove Colonel Gormley's reasons for saying the wound was due to blunt force trauma are false and who said, in a sworn deposition, that she was told by Jeanmarie Sentelle at AFIP that Gormley made a second set of x-rays because the first showed a lead snowstorm? She said Sentelle told her that Gormley tampered with the 2nd set of x-rays to eliminate the snowstorm.

Surely you see the problem here or would you prefer to walk around clueless?

Regarding the lack of autopsy, it was already obvious what the cause of death was (plane crash), so why waste everybody's time by doing a meaningless autopsy?

Perhaps because it wasn't obvious to the experts whose job it is to determine if there is foul play in a death? Two top military forensic pathologists went on record during the examination of Brown's body saying it looked like a bullet wound and that Brown should be autopsied. Several more went on record later saying the same thing. Several more civilian pathologists have said the same thing upon looking at the x-rays and photos. On the other hand, the ONLY named pathologist still on record saying it was blunt force trauma is the head of AFIP, Mr Dickerson, who lied to the public about the views of his staff on this matter. Even the examining pathologist, Gormley, now says there was a "red flag" and that Brown should have been autopsied. So would it be so "meaningless"? Or are you democRAT trying to spin this away?

If there really was evidence of a bullet wound, why wouldn't this story be on the front page of every newspaper in the country?

Well let's see. Could it be because the media is very friendly with democRATS and the Clintons, and had a habit of not reporting or downplaying anything detrimental to that them or their administration? I challenge you to find an article in the mainstream media (ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, LATimes, NYTimes, Washington Post, etc) which discussed the allegations of the pathologists and photographer. The only time I know of where the mainstream networks mentioned the Brown allegation was in a TV report on UFO conspiracists. They used the wackiness of those people to discredit the Brown allegation without ever telling the audience a single thing about that allegation.

Would you like another example of this bias? The mainstream media hardly mentioned the rape allegation against Bill Clinton by Broaddrick ... a rape allegation that FBI agents who investigated the matter said were quite credible. The Los Angeles Times, to take one example, didn't say one word about Broaddrick's allegation until years after Clinton was out of office and then, only because they had to apologize to George Will for cutting out a reference to the allegation in one of his columns and publishing that column without ever consulting George Will. THAT is how bad the bias in the media is when it comes to protecting the Clintons.

 

[BeAChooser]

This has already been debunked

By the way, if you think it's been debunked, point me to a thread here at JREF that did that. There is one, right? Right?

 

[BeAChooser]

<crickets>

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Silence is not evidence that people can't answer your questions. Silence is evidence people do not wnat to, for whatever reason.

 

[BeAChooser]

Silence is not evidence that people can't answer your questions. Silence is evidence people do not wnat to, for whatever reason.

Well enlighten me. What are the reasons in this case?

Should I assume you don't agree with me?

If so, tell me your reasons.

 

[332nd]

Not sure if it counts as a CT but for quite a while now I've believed that Jack the Ripper was a woman.

 

[Dr Harry Rein]

My theory is that Dylan Avery is actually the master planner behind 9/11. After all, using twoofer logic, anybody that has something to gain must have done it. And can Dylan prove that he didn't do it?

 

[simakperrce]

Americans in fact landed on the moon.

 

[AgeGap]

Americans did NOT land on the moon. FACT.

The Moon Landing Truth

Above site does vave swearing.

 

[RedIbis]

Pat Tillman murdered for his political views might have some legs as a "conspiracy theory."

 

[leftysergeant]

It has been sop long that I have forgotten where I saw it, but someone saw fit to put a picture of Brown's post-mortem head x-rays in a magazine article about the conspiracy. Sure did look like a bullet wound except for one thing.

No bullet. No bullet fragments. No anomolies in any bone structure away from the entry wound. And the hole looked larger to me than a .45 wound.

There are a lot of metal tubes in an aircraft.

I seriously doubt that there was a suicidal assasin on board, and I would surely not like trying to parachute out of an aircraft low over mountains.