Pet Theories

[BeAChooser]

The forensic pathologists and the photographer have zero evidence linking any of this to Bill Clinton. For all you know, some local got to the crash first, shot Ron Brown in the head and took his gold watch.

So is that the best excuse you can come up with for ignoring them ... for not properly investigating a possible mass murder? Because the pathologists presented no evidence directly linking their suspicions of foul play to Bill Clinton? Should we therefore cancel all autopsies in the US unless the pathologists can directly link what they fear might be foul play to Bill Clinton? That seems to be your theory here. And I trust you see how ridiculous that theory sounds.

 

[Alt+F4]

So is that the best excuse you can come up with for ignoring them ... for not properly investigating a possible mass murder? Because the pathologists presented no evidence directly linking their suspicions of foul play to Bill Clinton? Should we therefore cancel all autopsies in the US unless the pathologists can directly link what they fear might be foul play to Bill Clinton? That seems to be your theory here. And I trust you see how ridiculous that theory sounds.

You're the one linking all this to Bill Clinton, not the pathologists. The doctor said Ron Brown was shot in the head, fine. With all his legal problems I wouldn't be suprised if he shot himself.

What of the other passengers on that flight? If this was murder then how do you know that one of them wasn't the intended victim?

As someone mentioned in another post, the only way to settle the question of whether he was shot is to exhume the poor man's body. I would think that those truly concerned with seeking justice for all those who died that day would be doing everything in their power to seek such a court order, even over the objections of the family.

 

[gnome]

I also think there's plenty of people who don't like Bill Clinton at all with enough power to arrange that, but somehow they don't seem terribly interested.

 

[BeAChooser]

You're the one linking all this to Bill Clinton, not the pathologists.

You are correct in saying the pathologists have not tried to make that link. All they've wanted is an autopsy to find out if there's a bullet in Brown's head. It was Clinton administration officials who prevented that. There you go ... a link.

The doctor said Ron Brown was shot in the head, fine. With all his legal problems I wouldn't be suprised if he shot himself.

There is desperate and then there is really desperate.

What of the other passengers on that flight? If this was murder then how do you know that one of them wasn't the intended victim?

If that's the case, why didn't the pathologists find what looked like a bullet hole in another person's body? Brown's was the only one they noted as having a head wound. And as far as I know, Brown was the only one who told Clinton he was going to turn state's evidence. But in any case, what's that got to do with not autopsying Brown?

As someone mentioned in another post, the only way to settle the question of whether he was shot is to exhume the poor man's body.

Actually, I was the one who said that. And it's true. This is an example where we can use the Empirical Method. One can falsify the whole conspiracy theory merely by exhuming and autopsying the body of Ron Brown and finding nothing unusual. I have no doubt that modern forensic methods would allow them to determine if Brown was shot even at this late date if he was. One would only insist that the autopsy be done by pathologists outside the government with the whistle blowing pathologists in attendence as witnesses to the whole process.

I would think that those truly concerned with seeking justice for all those who died that day would be doing everything in their power to seek such a court order, even over the objections of the family.

It's more difficult to do than you think when the whole establishment is against doing it. The last thing the Bush administration wanted was to stir this pot. Perhaps because Bush has some skeletons too that democRATS know about. Filegate might have been helpful in that. And, of course, the democRATS have no interest in pursuing this. Pursuing this has been like beating one's head against a brick wall. Ask Larry Elder.

 

[Alt+F4]

One can falsify the whole conspiracy theory merely by exhuming and autopsying the body of Ron Brown and finding nothing unusual. I have no doubt that modern forensic methods would allow them to determine if Brown was shot even at this late date if he was. One would only insist that the autopsy be done by pathologists outside the government with the whistle blowing pathologists in attendence as witnesses to the whole process.

Thousands of persons have served in the United States Congress over the past eleven years and has any of them used their power to investigate this matter? Why not?

 

[BeAChooser]

Thousands of persons have served in the United States Congress over the past eleven years and has any of them used their power to investigate this matter?

You are still trying to avoid the heart of this issue ... what the pathologists and photographer said and what the photos of the x-ray show.

It doesn't matter what congressmen did or didn't do because NONE of them is a trained pathologist nor have any of them named a credible pathologist who advised them the evidence shows Brown died by blunt force trauma and didn't need an autopsy.

Congressmen ignore lots of things for lots of reasons. I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to guess the motivations of congressmen in this case. All I really need address in this case is what the REAL experts in this case had to say ... almost unanimously say, I should add.

By the way, here is what Congress had to say about Ron Brown at his death:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n25_v89/ai_18260213

Notice there is not one word about the fact that he was under investigation by literally everybody at the time of his death. There is not one word about the fact that his wife and son had already been indicted. There is not word about the Special Prosecutor who was investigating him or the fact that he was about to be indicted for a long list of crimes which was only growing longer as time passed. So I wouldn't put much weight in whether congressmen did anything or didn't. Congressmen on the whole are basically interested in one thing. Remaining congressmen. In this case, clearly no one wanted to rock the boat. Some might even have had good reasons not to rock the boat. Perhaps skeletons in their own closet. Because one thing is for sure ... if this were pursued things would get very messy very fast. With a charge this serious, George Stephanopoulos' warning about Clinton employing a strategy of mutual assured destruction would have become fact. This could have brought the whole government down. And that's really why I don't think anyone wanted to go near it.

Now if you want the real story of Ron Brown's activities before his death, I suggest you read Cashill's book. You will be shocked at the corruption he was involved in up to his neck. But then most congressmen are corrupt in one way or another.

 

[BeAChooser]

And by the way, this STILL could bring the whole government down since it would be hard for Bush's administration to claim they were unaware of these allegations or what the pathologists and photographer said. Nor does the media really have an interest in pursuing this as it would only expose their failure to report the facts at the time making them look like they were part of the coverup. So it's like banging one's head against a brick wall.

 

[Brainache]

And by the way, this STILL could bring the whole government down since it would be hard for Bush's administration to claim they were unaware of these allegations or what the pathologists and photographer said. Nor does the media really have an interest in pursuing this as it would only expose their failure to report the facts at the time making them look like they were part of the coverup. So it's like banging one's head against a brick wall.

You do know that "The Media" is not some monolithic entity don't you? There are lots of damn good freelance investigative reporters out there who don't belong to anyone but themselves and who would be on this story like stink on a monkey if there was anything to it.

I have never met a journo who would run away from the chance of the kind of fame and prestige that breaking a story like this would bring.

Maybe you want to argue that every Journalist in the world is in Clinton's pocket, but you wouldn't be that silly would you?

Maybe they just don't want to rock the boat? Yeah, Journalists hate doing that.

I can see that you take this issue seriously and that you seem to have a way with words, why don't you write up all of your evidence and submit it to one of the big News organisations? Rupert Murdoch might be interested or possibly someone at Hearst?

 

[BeAChooser]

You do know that "The Media" is not some monolithic entity don't you?

Believe it or not, I do. That non-monolithic character is why the allegations concerning Ron Brown (and all the other allegations of crimes during the Clinton era) made it to daylight at all. But don't think the media outside the mainstream have (and certainly had back in the mid 90's) much of an audience. Mainstream media is called mainstream for a reason. And it was even more "mainstream" at the time the Brown allegations were *news* because entities like Fox News didn't yet exist.

The simple truth is that most people are STILL unaware of the facts in this case because ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NYTimes, LATimes, WashPost and the rest of the mainstream media didn't and haven't said one word about the allegations of the pathologists and photographer. The closest I ever heard any of them come is when ABC or NBC (I forget which) did a story laughing at the silliness of UFOologists and mentioned in passing that there were also allegations of foul play in the death of Ron Brown circulating the internet. You see what they were trying to do, don't you?

There are lots of damn good freelance investigative reporters out there who don't belong to anyone but themselves and who would be on this story like stink on a monkey if there was anything to it.

Actually a whole bunch of freelance journalists reported on the Brown case back in the mid 90's. But their articles weren't carried by any of the mainstream media sources. They were ignored. No way to make a living when that's the situation.

Journalists have even published books on this. Here's a challenge for you ... do a search in the mainstream media where they review or list new books. You come back to me if you find ANY OF THEM reviewing Jack Cashill's book "Ron Brown's Body". Or even just mentioning the book. I bet you will strike out. You see, if they won't mention the book it will never be widely read. No way to make a living doing that which is why so few journalists are going to pursue this topic. Especially when not even the Republican leadership wants this story known.

I have never met a journo who would run away from the chance of the kind of fame and prestige that breaking a story like this would bring.

But you'll never get that fame and prestige if the mainstream media simply ignores you. That's a fact. So what you are offering as a way of dismissing the allegations, instead of actually addressing the facts that have been laid out in this thread, is a red herring. Nice try.

 

[Brainache]

Well frankly I'm not all that interested in the details of this particular case. It really has no effect on me one way or another. It does surprise me however that if it is such an important case, that even Fox would pass up the chance to stick the boot into those evil Clintons.

BTW I believe the MSM is so-called because it has the largest audience. If you can find a way to make this story as sexy as Paris or Lindsay, then the masses might take an interest.

I'm not saying that you are right or wrong, just that I'd be very surprised if it really is as open and shut as you assert.

 

[leftysergeant]

This doesn't make a bit of sense. Brown was shot, according to the conspiracy theory, but when?

The Weekend at Bernie's scenario is just to bizarre. Someone would have noticed a corpse strapped into a seat pre-flight and would have refused to go on with it.

Was Brown alive after the crash and was shot by operatives who knew where to find him? And no one else survived the crash? Most peculiar. Did anyone do an autopsy on the other victims?

And I must say, it seems odd that any kind of pistol round other than a Glaser or similar round would so utterly fragment inside brain tissue.

A friend of mine was shot in the head with a .357 and the doctors removed the bullet from inside his skull in one huge piece and a few small ones. It just kind of made half a circuit of the interior of his skull, luckily through relatively little brain tiussue. That stuff inside brown's skull in the x-rays should not really be so shredded and irregular, if it is any loading that I know of. Glass or sand, maybe? I have not seen pictures or descriptions of what his face looked like.

 

[Digest]

And I must say, it seems odd that any kind of pistol round other than a Glaser or similar round would so utterly fragment inside brain tissue.

NWO Ice bullet (tm) Melts away - come on sarge it was in the movies you know its possible!

 

[DavidJames]

I'm sorry as I may have missed it, why again aren't Hillary's political opponents pursing this crime against her Husband? Certainly living in White House during the time the president was having people killed could be used to their political advantage.

 

[CJOKUSAP]

Regarding that, well who said these guys knew what building's destruction would affect us the most? They were clearly nuts.

But smart enough to outwit your entire defence system? Now come on , you can't have it both ways!

I have no pet conspiracy theories myself.

Neither have I!

 

[BeAChooser]

It really has no effect on me one way or another.

Actually, I suspect corruption of this magnitude in the US government (if it's true) will eventually affect everyone on earth.

It does surprise me however that if it is such an important case, that even Fox would pass up the chance to stick the boot into those evil Clintons.

First, Fox News wasn't around when Brown died and was barely started when the allegations first surfaced. Even so, you are wrong. The Hannity & Colmes program had Christopher Ruddy on to state his findings regarding the death of Ron Brown. And one can't claim bias in their allowing Ruddy on since they allowed a number of opposing voices including Ellen Ratner to challenge him. Hannity defended him, by the way. The problem is that at the time Fox was still minor league so they had no affect on public opinion nor were they able to help force other networks to report the story as they have forced the other networks to report stories since. And the problem now is that sticking it to the Clintons would also stick it to Bush and host of Republicans because they clearly ignored the allegations. That's probably why they've now dropped it. There, their conservative leanings do show.

BTW I believe the MSM is so-called because it has the largest audience.

That's exactly right.

I'm not saying that you are right or wrong, just that I'd be very surprised if it really is as open and shut as you assert.

I'm not claiming Brown was definitely shot. Only that there is good reason to be suspicious in this case and that the only way to resolve the questions is to exhume and autopsy Brown's body.

 

[BeAChooser]

This doesn't make a bit of sense. Brown was shot, according to the conspiracy theory, but when?

Why do you insist on getting the cart before the horse? Isn't it enough that highly skilled pathologists say he might have been shot? Usually, when pathologists suspect that, an autopsy is performed to find out if that suspicion is true. If the autopsy shows it is true, THEN law enforcement investigates and find out the when, how and why. I think, therefore, that what you are pushing is just a distraction that you hope will stop an exhumation and autopsy.

Did anyone do an autopsy on the other victims?

Its reported that Shelly Kelly was autopsied. Cheryl Turnage, the other stewardess, was also reportedly autopsied.

And I must say, it seems odd that any kind of pistol round other than a Glaser or similar round would so utterly fragment inside brain tissue.

The pathologists who I've quoted don't seem to think the metal density flakes are an utterly fragmented bullet. So why claim that? Another red herring?

 

[Brainache]

Actually, I suspect corruption of this magnitude in the US government (if it's true) will eventually affect everyone on earth.

If the USG is as corrupt already as you say it is, then I would suggest getting the hell out of there. Maybe Kevin Lowe can point you to some nice real estate in Tasmania...

First, Fox News wasn't around when Brown died and was barely started when the allegations first surfaced. Even so, you are wrong. The Hannity & Colmes program had Christopher Ruddy on to state his findings regarding the death of Ron Brown. And one can't claim bias in their allowing Ruddy on since they allowed a number of opposing voices including Ellen Ratner to challenge him. Hannity defended him, by the way. The problem is that at the time Fox was still minor league so they had no affect on public opinion nor were they able to help force other networks to report the story as they have forced the other networks to report stories since. And the problem now is that sticking it to the Clintons would also stick it to Bush and host of Republicans because they clearly ignored the allegations. That's probably why they've now dropped it. There, their conservative leanings do show.

But surely Fox could spin this away from the Reps. Bring it up at least in time to scuttle Hilary's Presidential dreams. It wouldn't be too hard to implicate the Clintons while excusing Bush because he didn't have all the facts. The fact that they haven't done this speaks volumes.

...
I'm not claiming Brown was definitely shot. Only that there is good reason to be suspicious in this case and that the only way to resolve the questions is to exhume and autopsy Brown's body.

How effective would that be ten years on? I suspect that even if they did as you suggest, there will always be some ambiguity for people who want to assume a conspiracy to latch onto.

I have to say, after seeing what Beachnut posted in the other Ron Brown thread, that the evidence points to a tragic accident rather than an evil plot.

 

[BeAChooser]

I'm sorry as I may have missed it, why again aren't Hillary's political opponents pursing this crime against her Husband? Certainly living in White House during the time the president was having people killed could be used to their political advantage.

As I've pointed out previously, there are any number of logical reasons this wasn't pursued.

I think first and foremost is that most of the people in the political process at the national level don't get to where they are without making compromises and having skeletons of their own. Filegate was an effort by the Clintons to gather such dirt on all their political opponents. And they got away with it, in part because Kenneth Starr was likely controlled. The proof of that is he told the public that the FBI files had been returned when near end of Clinton's administration it was revealed by his replacement, Ray, that the files were still in White House hands. The proof of that is it was left up to Judicial Watch with their meager civil suit powers to find the true scope of Filegate and reveal Hillary's connections to it. Starr didn't even try. The proof of that is Starr's handling of the Vince Foster matter. As I pointed out earlier, George Stephanopoulos', an insider in the Clinton camp, warned about Clinton employing a strategy of mutual assured destruction. Can you imagine the dirt that might have been thrown had they pushed allegations of this sort. Not to mention that the media at that time was decidely in the Clinton camp and was already covering up rape allegations and the full scope of Chinagate, etc.

But regardless, that's immaterial to whether the allegations have merit. It is a FACT that the pathologists in the case, ALL OF THEM (except one who can be proven to have lied about the facts and the opinions of the other pathologists), were concerned about the fact that the wound suggested gunshot and said an autopsy should be performed. It is a FACT that the government hid this from the public and the families. It is a FACT that when this was exposed, the government didn't properly investigate the matter but instead punished the pathologists and photographer. It is a FACT that the government even then lied about the nature of the evidence.

And it is a FACT that there are many other suspicious facts in this case that so far most everyone here seems to want to sweep under the rug.

 

[BeAChooser]

But surely Fox could spin this away from the Reps.

How? How in the world can Fox News spin the fact that the Bush administration had to know about the allegations and did NOTHING? People like me were writing the Bush administration with concerns like this. Judicial Watch was trying to get the Bush administration to follow up on ANY of the crimes committed during the Clinton administration. With no luck. How in the world can Fox News spin the fact that James Riady stood up in a California court and under a plea agreement that the Bush's Administration brokered told the judge that Clinton and the DNC had not returned the millions in illegal campaign contributions that he gave them despite their having publically claimed they had ... and then the Bush administration did NOTHING?

It wouldn't be too hard to implicate the Clintons while excusing Bush because he didn't have all the facts.

I don't think anyone would believe that at this point. Hence my voting that BOTH Clinton and Bush committed impeachable offenses in this matter.

How effective would that be ten years on?

Given modern forensic methods? I don't think there is any doubt that they could find evidence of a bullet in the body if one had in fact killed Brown. Their methods and tools are so good that they are now using them to tell us that people hundreds and even thousands of years ago were murdered based on an exhumation and autopsy.

I have to say, after seeing what Beachnut posted in the other Ron Brown thread, that the evidence points to a tragic accident rather than an evil plot.

And I have to say that the Brown case is an excellent litmus test.

 

[DavidJames]

I think first and foremost is that most of the people in the political process at the national level don't get to where they are without making compromises and having skeletons of their own. Filegate was an effort by the Clintons to gather such dirt on all their political opponents. And they got away with it, in part because Kenneth Starr was likely controlled. The proof of that is he told the public that the FBI files had been returned when near end of Clinton's administration it was revealed by his replacement, Ray, that the files were still in White House hands. The proof of that is it was left up to Judicial Watch with their meager civil suit powers to find the true scope of Filegate and reveal Hillary's connections to it. Starr didn't even try. The proof of that is Starr's handling of the Vince Foster matter. As I pointed out earlier, George Stephanopoulos', an insider in the Clinton camp, warned about Clinton employing a strategy of mutual assured destruction. Can you imagine the dirt that might have been thrown had they pushed allegations of this sort. Not to mention that the media at that time was decidely in the Clinton camp and was already covering up rape allegations and the full scope of Chinagate, etc.

But regardless, that's immaterial to whether the allegations have merit. It is a FACT that the pathologists in the case, ALL OF THEM (except one who can be proven to have lied about the facts and the opinions of the other pathologists), were concerned about the fact that the wound suggested gunshot and said an autopsy should be performed. It is a FACT that the government hid this from the public and the families. It is a FACT that when this was exposed, the government didn't properly investigate the matter but instead punished the pathologists and photographer. It is a FACT that the government even then lied about the nature of the evidence.

And it is a FACT that there are many other suspicious facts in this case that so far most everyone here seems to want to sweep under the rug.

It is a FACT that your logic is in lock step with most every CTist that visits this forum.

Cherry Picking quotes, evidence - Check
No reliable sources - Check
Media in on it - Check
Govt in on it - Check
Shady behind the scene deals by powerful NWO like characters - Check
Occam's razor thrown out the window - Check
CTist displays politically based rage against target - Check