You spend a lot of time casting doubt on the official story, but as most people around here know from looking at 9/11 kookery or moon landing kookery it is very easy to find reasons to cast doubt on any story, especially if you are free to fudge a few details and you aren't technically knowledgeable.
I challenge you to identify the details I've fudged and you don't know anything about my background. Like I said, don't be vague. I'm not.
Unlike the 9/11 and moon landing kookery, I'm the one with the expert opinion on my side. You are the one asserting you know more about forensic pathology, bullet wounds and plane crashes, than the forensic pathologists who actually are experts in bullet wounds and plane crashes.
What you avoid doing is making an unambiguous statement about what you think did happen, and when, and how.
But it isn't possible for me to make an unambiguous statement given there is so much we don't know. But we do know that ALL the named forensic pathologists that have come forward except one (and he can be proven to have lied about the facts and the opinions of the other forensic pathologists) say the wound looked like a bullet wound and Brown should have been autopsied. And to avoid addressing that fact, you insist I pin myself down to a specific scenario how a bullet wound might have come about. What can I do but laugh?
We have established that you cannot find any evidence that a bullet can produce the effect in question - that is, of a metal "snowstorm" of fragments inside the skull with neither visible bullet nor exit wound.
No, you haven't established that. All you've established is that you are willing to try yet another debating tactic to avoid addressing what the real experts in this case ... the forensic pathologists ... actually said. And that is that bullets create "lead snowstorms", Brown's head contained one, and the bullet might either still be in the body or have exited through a exit wound that they didn't find because no one actually looked for one (contrary to what a few of you dishonestly claimed).
In other words we have is an external wound that looks strikingly like an entry wound, but we have disproven the theory that it could have been a bullet. So what is an autopsy for exactly?
Isn't it amazing the desperation these posters are showing? What is it folks, about the Brown case that would lead posters to sacrifice their credibility on this forum in this manner? Now I've noted in the past that this is a characteristic of toe tag democRATS. But perhaps there is another category I missed.
I'm happy to take the motive for killing Brown as read, although given that I've seen plenty of anti-Clinton kookery I'm not saying I believe this story.
You want more on the motive. Well you asked for it.
At his death, Ron Brown was under investigation by the FDIC, the Congressional Reform and Oversight Committee, the FBI, the Energy Department, the Senate Judiciary Committee and even his own Commerce Department Inspector General. He was scheduled to be deposed by Judicial Watch regarding the illegal sale of trade mission seats for campaign contributions. The Justice Department asked that the deposition be postponed until he returned from the ill-fated trade mission.
He was also about to be indicted by an independent council named Daniel Pearson. Brown's wife and son had already been indicted on related charges. Pearson had plenty of documentary evidence and testimony on over a dozen serious crimes (like ending the trade embargo against North Vietnam for $700,000 dollars in bribes). The situation was so serious that Brown had retained a $750/hour attorney and he spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal. And matters only got worse. Only days before Brown's death, another 20 witnesses were subpoenaed focusing on Brown's dealings. It seems that an Oklahoma gas company called Dynamic Energy Resources gave Brown's son Michael $500,000 in stock, a $160,000 cash payment, and exclusive country club memberships. Former Dynamic president Stewart Price told a Tulsa grand jury that the money was to be routed to Ron Brown, who was expected to "fix" a big lawsuit for Dynamic.
Almost immediately after Brown's death, the Pearson probe was shut down. However, Judicial Watch continued its efforts questioning Nolanda Hill, a democrat fund raiser and one of Brown's key business partners, in court under oath. Nolanda Hill paid Brown $500,000 for his interest in First International, Inc., a company that never made any profit. First Int'l, which owned Corridor Broadcasting, defaulted on government loans totalling $40 million. The loans were passed to the FDIC, which was unsuccessful in collecting anything from Hill, even though at that time the firm was making large contributions to the DemocRATic Party and paying hundreds of thousands to Brown through shell corporations. These payments to Brown (three checks for $45,000 each) were the core of evidence gathered by Rep. Clinger that forced Reno to hire Daniel Pearson in the first place. They were cashier checks, all cut on the same day in 1993 with sequential numbers even though the money supposedly came from three contributors acting independently. Brown never disclosed or paid any taxes on these amounts.
Just one week before Nolanda's testimony, the Whitehouse had her charged with a crime. Judge Lamberth has revealed that Hill testified that Brown told her he was ordered by Leon Panetta and John Podesta, two of Clinton's Whitehouse Chiefs Of Staff, to "slow down" the effort to comply with Judicial Watch's request (subpoena) for documents. Lamberth has said there is ample evidence that department officials did so.
Nolanda Hill also testified that shortly before the crash Brown met with Panetta and turned over a stack of documents that would have proven he sold seats on trade missions for very large, illegal, contributions to the DNC. These documents were withheld in violation of the Judicial Watch subpoena. Nolanda swore under oath that Brown told Panetta "if I go down, so will everyone else".
Nolanda Hill also testified that shortly before he died, Brown went to see Clinton and told him that he intended to enter a plea agreement and testify against the Administration. She then testified that prior to making this threat, Brown wasn't scheduled to be on the trade mission flight that crashed. She says at the last minute the White House told Brown to go. It is worth noting that much of Hill's testimony has been proven true or cooberated by other witnesses. There was nothing ever presented by the Whitehouse to suggest she was making up the allegations. They tried to smear her but they never proved that what she claims is untrue ... for example by proving that Brown had no meeting with Clinton shortly before the flight.
Now consider this ... Ron Brown was at the focus of much of the campaign finance illegalities that occurred and was the conduit for much of the technology passed to the Chinese during the early Clinton years. 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 oversight? The agencies who previously did that oversight were all on record as being against the exports that occurred.
According to sworn testimony from Nolanda Hill, many millions of dollars in illegal DNC and Clinton campaign contributions were received through the sale of trade mission seats and in exchange for authorization by Ron Brown's Commerce Department to sell what in previous administrations was considered highly restricted missile, computer, radar, satellite, manufacturing and encryption technology. Others have testified to brown bags full of illegal campaign cash coming from the Chinese. Riady, who gave millions is thought to have been a conduit for other Chinese contributions (by the way, Riady said his illegal contributions were never returned even though the DNC and Clinton claimed they were).
Brown worked closely with Huang, Riady, Chung, 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. For instance ...
John Huang, who by all accounts was one of Clinton's close friends, worked side by side with Ron Brown after working in the Whitehouse. He was an employee of Riady at one time. After leaving Commerce, Huang went to work for the DNC. His involvement in campaign finance violations was uncovered by Judicial Watch. He falsely represented under oath that he was "a budget clerk," "participated in no fundraising," and "kept no records at the Commerce Department." He invoked the 5th Amendment over 2000 times in many depositions. He is labeled a "Chinese agent" by people in the CIA, FBI and Congress. Yet, he was given a Top Secret clearance by the Whitehouse without a background check and attended over 100 Top Secret briefings. The Justice Department failed to pursue the allegations of spying and never even deposed him. He received only a "wrist slap" for admitted campaign finance violations. He was given a grant of immunity in the Judicial Watch case to force him to testify ... yet he was still invoking the 5th!
Johnny Chung, who participated in trade missions to China in 1994, is one of the few to actually turn state's evidence (after Waxman, the top Democrat on the Committee before which he testified, blatantly tried to get him to plead the 5th). Among other things, Chung testified that the head of China's military intelligence, General Gee Shengdi, gave him $300,000 for the president's campaign. He says he was told by the General that other people were also receiving money "to do good things for China". The FBI assigned dozens of agents to protect him (in fact, they arrested an armed man who tried to get Chung at his office). Investigators say that many aspects of his testimony check out. Chung participated in a FBI wiretape that clearly suggests there was an agreement between Clinton and the Premier of China on how to coverup Chinagate.
Mark Middleton, a former high- level White House aide, was, according to Chung, one of those identified by General Gee Shengdi as receiving money ... 500,000 dollars. Mr. Middleton took the 5th when questioned about this and the Reno DOJ let him skate.
Charlie Trie participated in trade missions to China and admitted to illegally funneling foreign money to the Democrats. Charlie appears to have lots of "friends". One of them, Wang Jun, met with Brown shortly after attending a "coffee" with Clinton. The same day, Clinton signed a waiver allowing Loral to transfer formerly restricted information to the Chinese. Note that Loral's CEO, Bernard Schwartz, was the single largest contributor to the DNC (over half a million dollars!).
James and Mochtar Riady, ex-employers of John Huang, are longtime friends and financial supporters of Clinton. Authorities say they have a long relationship with Chinese intelligence. Clinton, while out of the country, met privately with them ... at a time when they are avoiding US authorities that sought to question them. Clinton tried to arrange a "Justice" Department deal for Riady to protect him from prosecution but it didn't go through before Bush took over. Nevertheless, Riady still got a "deal" (wink wink).
Ira Sockowitz (remember ... he's the one who reported to the White House that two people survived the Brown crash) not only worked for Commerce but knew John Huang. In May 1996, he and his boss moved to the Small Business Administration (SBA). Three days later, Commerce approved a SCI clearance (above Top Secret) for him. Sockowitz visited Commerce and removed 136 secret files (many of them dealing with China) from his old safe. He told his old secretary that he was gathering personal items. Commerce now says he violated his clearance by not returning the files. He claims he needed them for his SBA job but the SBA disputes that. Sockowitz left the SBA in Nov 96 and the Justice Department stopped investigating in Dec 96 ... without ever interviewing Sockowitz, his boss or his replacement.
The bottom line is this. Clinton and the democrats stole 2 presidential elections using tens of millions of dollars in money obtained illegally from the military in Communist China, a country whose defense minister a few years ago said he sees war with the United States as inevitable. Chinese spies were given continued access to classified missile, nuclear, radar and submarine secrets. There is sworn testimony by individuals in our counter intelligence community that they were ordered by their superiors during the Clinton years not to pursue these espionage cases. The connection with Ron Brown is that the technology Brown approved (for example, 10 billion dollars worth of super computers), during a time when the Administration knew of the spying, made it possible for the Chinese to use the secrets they stole. Surely this is a treason worth killing someone in order to keep it from coming out in court.
The motive for killing him by crashing a plane, along with a couple of dozen of other innocent people, in a way that guarantees an investigation
But its an investigation they could control. Do you know they even kicked the Croatian media out of the crash site? You think they could have done that with any type of accident in the states?
why not just get him with a car crash or a fake heart attack or something else much simpler?
Because in those cases, anything suspicious would get extra attention ... couldn't be explained away as the result of airplane crash. This is all moot anyway. The experts in the Brown case ALL (except for one demonstrable liar) say Brown's wound could have been a bullet wound and he should have been autopsied. By law he was supposed to have been autopsied. The order not to do it came down from the highest level of our government.
The theory currently looks to me like the ridiculous mix of hyper-competent and hyper-stupid elements that characterise conspiracy theories.
You have your opinion ... but I don't see you actually engaging in a challenge of the facts that suggest you are wrong. Instead, you seem quite content with letting some fine military officers have their reputations, careers and lives ruined even though they've clearly done nothing wrong. How curious...
Those features of the story are certainly not what I would expect in a well-run air force, but at the same time it's a hell of a complicated way to whack someone isn't it?
That's your opinion. I don't see it that way for the reasons stated. What it does is provide cover for the murder which you wouldn't have under other scenarios.
If you have that kind of access why not just put a bomb on the damn plane?
Because then you can't call it an accident.
A perfectly good explanation is that the guy was depressed anyway, and may have thought he was going to get blamed (rightly or wrongly) for contributing to a nasty crash, and he took what seemed the easy way out.
Talk about weaving a yarn. You, of course, have absolutely no evidence to back this theory up. All this just to avoid facing the fact that all the real experts in this case said the wound looked like a bullet wound and Brown should have been autopsied. By the way, why do you trust the son of the Croatian strongman? Do you know anything about him?
The theory is they had a spoofed beacon, not a magical remote control device that could crash the plane when and where they wanted it.
There's nothing magic about it. It's just science. Your desperation is showing a little.
The pilots would be landing on what they thought was a runway, following a specific path to it. The training and expertise of the pilots would ensure that. The person who situated the portable beacon would know what it was telling the pilot and thus know exactly (sans last second efforts by the pilot) where the plane would come down.
Are the conspirators supposed to be in control of the weather too
No, but they would have known days in advance what the weather in the region was going to be. DeSeve, a special agent working security for Commerce, said that the weather turned sour on March 31 and was not expected to improve. The Dubrovnik stop was scheduled when they already knew what the weather was going to be and they knew the weather would be like that to April 3rd. Sort of like the Allies knew what the weather would be at Normandy.
Is it any surprise that the air force people got to the scene first when they were the ones in contact with the plane
Actually yes, given that they were told the wrong location for the crash by the Croatians. And you missed the point. The official report states that the Croatians got there first. It doesn't say that our Air Force people got there first. Yet the AP reported that the Croatians rescuers said they were met by 3 Americans. Curious, huh?
Oh, wow. Now the Monica Lewinsky thing was all a cunning plot by the Clintons to distract attention from the real conspiracy?
How do you know that Ken Starr was an honest investigator and not under control of the clintons? Do you know his was the number 2 name on the list of names submitted by the Clintons for the job of special prosecutor? You think they'd leave that to chance? Do you know that he told the public that the FBI files in the Filegate matter had been returned to the the FBI but Ray, who took over from him, revealed in a TV interview that the files were still in the Whitehouse? He lied to you and me, Kevin.
We already established that the available evidence does not support a gunshot as the cause of death
No, what we established is you think you are smarter and more of an expert on gunshot wounds and the evidence than Cogswell, Hause, Parsons, Gormley, Wecht ... all real forensic pathologists with years and years of experience investigating gunshot wounds. What we established is your desperation in seeing this allegation go away.
