Brown murder conspiracy split from Bush v Clinton Impeachment

[BeAChooser]

the witnesses statements are not in the factual secton of the SIB report

Correction. CONFIDENTIAL witness statements are not in Part I. Now what confidential witness statements were taken during the Brown Accident Investigation?

Lurkers might find this interesting.

https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/ES-Programs/Force/Safety/Reports/gil.html " As a matter of law and policy, DoD uses two distinct investigation processes - (1) an "accident" or "legal" investigation, and (2) a "safety" investigation (see 10 USC §2254(a)(2)) ... snip ... Legal and safety investigators may, and often do, interview the same witnesses. The legal investigator, however, cannot access or use privileged information from the safety investigation. Evidence gathered during legal investigations may be used in civil litigation as well as in military criminal and adverse administrative proceedings. Therefore, witnesses must be advised of their rights against self-incrimination and of representation by counsel -- an advisement which often proves counter-productive to accident prevention."

What that part in bold is really saying is that because witnesses in AIBs must be advised of their rights (they were in the Brown case, weren't they? ROTFLOL!), they might not actually get to the truth of what happened.

 

[Disenchanted]

Really? So you are going to stake your credibility on this forum on the claim that Ron Brown was autopsied ... i.e., they cut his head/body open and looked inside? Want to bet your continued presence on this forum? I tell you what, I could start a thread polling REFers as to whether they think Ron Brown was autopsied based on the sources/data you and I will each offer with our continued presence on this forum as the stakes for the outcome. You game?

beachnut said there were autopsies and I would be willing to bet you cannot show that no autopsies were done in the case. If Brown was shot then wouldn’t at least one other have to be shot as well? It wouldn’t make sense for just one in a crash to be shot and expect the others to die in the crash. Have any of your pathologists found any evidence for bullets?

Are you claiming Rense, Newsmax, all just simultaneously, or near simultaneously, made up the story and attributed it to some fictitious Christopher Ruddy? Or altered a story Ruddy wrote? Are you claiming those sites just made up fictitious quotes by the photographer and some of the pathologists who were at Dover and the crash site? Is that it? Because I hope you realize that I can link a video clip that shows Ruddy himself stating the claim that Brown wasn't autopsied and quoting Janoski and others to that effect. And those web sites just link articles that were first carried in other venues ... like the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. Are you claiming that the Pittsburgh Tribune Review is the source that fabricated the story? I wonder if I'd be able to get them to comment on that accusation.

Or perhaps you are claiming that Christopher Ruddy made the story up and venues like Newsmax have been taken in by his fabrication. In that case, you must be claiming that he never interviewed Janoski or any of the pathologists or that they don't care if he misquoted them? And since others, like Ruddy, claim to have interviewed Janoski and some of the pathologists, you must think they made up their story too ... persumably after reading Ruddy's account since the details between the stories seem to match precisely. Is that your assertion?

I don’t trust much the Trib puts in its paper because it is A.) yellow B.) run by Richard Mellon Scaife who funded the Arkansas Project.

NewsMax was founded by Christopher Ruddy who is the CEO and Editor-in-Chief. So he wouldn’t need for Newsmax to be taken in by it because he runs it.

I don’t know if he fabricated anything, but given that he was probably looking for another conspiracy theory following his Foster book. So he may have exaggerated some things.

Rense is a site for all sorts of conspiracy theories including 9-11 claims.

 

[funk de fino]

No, I'm more fascinated by how willing JREFers like you are to LIE about the facts. You can't claim there was no exit wound because they didn't look for an exit wound. As I think I've proven resoundingly on this and the other threads.

You have no exit wound, go find one.

Have you actually seen someone who has been shot, I have, exit wounds are generally large.

I'm fascinated that JREFers who deride 911 Twoofers for ignoring what experts say are so willing to ignore what the experts ... the forensic pathologists ... say in this case. "Nothing else, nothing more."

Speculation from pathologists is not evidence, looks like a bullet hole is not a bullethole. You have to prove its a bullethole, just like the 911 TM have to prove it was CD

He wasn't just a "guy". He was considered by the heads of AFIP to be one of the Air Force's top forensic pathologists and an expert where gunshot and plane crashes are concerned.

Now an example of a "guy" making a claim ... would be YOU.

Read it with an "open mind"? ROTFLOL! If you'd read this thread AT ALL, you'd know that I already addressed each of those questions several times. As far as being a democRAT, since you mentioned it ... are you?

I know many parts of aircraft that could cause holes that shape, do you? What is your aircraft experience? If they took all the wreckage to a hangar and he sifted through every part they recovered, then documented them and ruled each one out, then yes, you may have a point. Did this happen?

Yes, I read it with an open mind and a lot of what I see from you is snideness, rudeness, speculation and mud slinging, in fact the very traits I see everyday here shown by the 911 TM

Look at it this way. I knew nothing about his case until I read this post and guess who I think is the most plausible?

I told you not to go there with the democRAT thing, I told you I was an outsider, I am not even American, you couldnt resist slinging more mud

You come across as scarily obssessed by this but as others have pointed out, have done nothing about it

Timeline and succinct theory of sit please? Not too much to ask

 

[pgwenthold]

You have no exit wound, go find one.

Have you actually seen someone who has been shot, I have, exit wounds are generally large.

In general, exit wounds will be much bigger than entrance wounds, especially when going through the head. Entrance wounds result from a bullet entering, and therefore are the size of a bullet cross section. Exit wounds result from LOTS of stuff escaping, including tissue and bone. This is why head wounds are so bad. Shattered skulls do a lot of damage. However, skulls are only shattered after the bullet has entered.

 

[BeAChooser]

beachnut said there were autopsies and I would be willing to bet you cannot show that no autopsies were done in the case.

The issue isn't whether autopsies were done ... some clearly were ... but whether Ron Brown specifically was autopsied. There comes a point in every Ron Brown thread where the feebleness of the arguments from the side which claims nothing suspicious happened grows exponentially. But you, sir, are exceeding all expectations by insisting Brown was autopsied and using beachnut, who has offered NOTHING material in the way to prove that, as your reason for believing that. In your case, about all I can do is laugh. You ignored everything I posted, including Associated Press reports, press statements from AFIP and submittals to a court of law which all indicate no autopsy. It's shocking to see such Twoofer mentality alive and well in the camp that argues for rationality on this forum. ROTFLOL!

You'll like the following ... it is almost as if it was written for you:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15990 "The hole in Byron York's head, Elizabeth Farah, January 20, 1998, My February issue of the American Spectator arrived today. I immediately flipped to page 50 to reread the article, "Ron Brown's Body," written by Byron York. ... snip ... York's article is best described as a hit piece on Chris Ruddy, the journalist who broke the story that a military forensic pathologist, Lt. Col. Steven Cogswell, identified a perfectly round cylindrical hole in Ron Brown's head. Of course, given Cogswell's impeccable credentials, many would say, further investigation is necessary. Not so, says York. These are "baseless accusations." ... He quotes Air Force Col. William Gormley as stating "the hole was not actually a hole; that is, it did not fully penetrate the skull. It was rather, a circular indentation in the top of the skull."

So you believe Byron? That the hole didn't penetrate the skull? Then why can you and I see brain matter in the photo of the wound? Why can you and I see a bone plug driven into the brain in the side x-ray? Here's more from the above article ...

"On page 53, Mr. York quotes White House spokesman Mike McCurry. McCurry was asked whether he gave any credence to the Brown-was-shot stories, his response: "Absolutely none. And credence is only given to those reports by entities associated with Richard Mellon Scaife. And we are right back into another one of these chasing a story that's been ginned up by people who no doubt for whatever reason hate the President of the United States....It's time to knock this stuff off. And I'm not going to talk about this further or take any further questions on the subject."

Why that sounds just like you. Let's see Elizabeth's response:

"How's that for righteous indignation? York then makes his point, "McCurry's words were familiar to anyone who has followed the White House's smear-the-accuser response to allegations of Clinton wrongdoing. While the tactic has been enormously successful against legitimate questions ... it probably won't work against the baseless accusations of the Ron Brown story." This comparison is rich. York had previously revealed to the reader the basis for his scathing denunciation of in his own "smear-the-accuser response." He says the real issue is not the hole in Brown's head but "Ruddy's credibility" and "questionable reporting." Parroting McCurry's style, York points out that Ruddy works for a "newspaper owned by Richard Mellon Scaife." In this he sees no contradiction. Nor does he point out that unlike Ruddy, he did not "investigate" the Brown story. He places no significance on the four experts' findings, only his opinion of Ruddy's veracity. By the way, until a scant two months ago, Mr. Scaife was a major financial supporter of ... you guessed it ... the American Spectator!"

What can one do but laugh, folks?

 

[BeAChooser]

Have you actually seen someone who has been shot, I have, exit wounds are generally large.

But not always, as the pathologists in this case have pointed out. And they never looked for an exit wound, as the witnesses have admitted. Furthermore, why do you assume there would be an exit wound. Sometimes, bullets end up inside a body. And Cogswell stated that one of the x-rays of the body showed an anomolous object. But we don't know what that object was since no autopsy was done.

Speculation from pathologists is not evidence

The *speculation* of pathologists certainly is evidence. They present that *speculation* in court rooms all the time. Along with the photos of wounds and x-rays that the pathologists base their *speculation* on. As we have here in this instance. Your specious argument shows a degree of desperation, sir.

I know many parts of aircraft that could cause holes that shape, do you? What is your aircraft experience?

My expertise is not the issue. Nor is yours. What matters is the expertise of the forensic pathologist who was at the crash site and looked for anything that might have caused the injury in Brown's head. And he was rated as one of the top pathologists in the Air Force. He was an expert on gunshot and plane crashes.

Yes, I read it with an open mind

But I'm not convinced you even read it at all. Not when you ask questions that I already addressed in the thread.

and a lot of what I see from you is snideness, rudeness, speculation and mud slinging, in fact the very traits I see everyday here shown by the 911 TM

I've been quite polite on this thread. In fact, I'd say that evidence shows the members of your side in this debate have been the ones demonstrating all those unpleasant traits.

I am not even American

Let me guess. You're from Australia? So what is your interest in the Brown matter since you know admittedly know nothing about it? Do you even know who Brown was? Why would you spend the precious time you can devote to this forum on a thread where it wouldn't appear you have any real interests?

Timeline and succinct theory of sit please?

Again, read the thread. It's there if you only look.

 

[BeAChooser]

In general, exit wounds will be much bigger than entrance wounds, especially when going through the head. Entrance wounds result from a bullet entering, and therefore are the size of a bullet cross section. Exit wounds result from LOTS of stuff escaping, including tissue and bone. This is why head wounds are so bad. Shattered skulls do a lot of damage. However, skulls are only shattered after the bullet has entered.

You completely misunderstand the evidence and what is being alleged. No one is claiming there might have been an exit wound in the head. The location of the wound and direction of the damage seen in the brain suggests the bullet traveled downward into the torso of the body.

You are also mistaken in declaring that exit wounds will be much bigger than entrance wounds in all cases. Statements by the pathologists in this case ... pathologists who are experts in gunshot (I'm sure far more expert than even you) ... indicated exit wounds can be small and difficult to find.

Furthermore, why do you assume there would be an exit wound? Bullets can end up lodged inside bodies and if one traveled through the neck into the torso, there would be plenty of opportunity for that to happen. And Cogswell, who presented the Ron Brown x-ray evidence at pathology conferences is on record saying that there was an anomalous object in the body in one of the x-rays. Too bad those x-rays seem to have just walked away from a locked safe at AFIP. Too bad they seized Cogswell's presentation on the subject.

 

[stanleywinthrop]

Correction. CONFIDENTIAL witness statements are not in Part I. Now what confidential witness statements were taken during the Brown Accident Investigation?

Lurkers might find this interesting.

https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/ES-Programs/Force/Safety/Reports/gil.html " As a matter of law and policy, DoD uses two distinct investigation processes - (1) an "accident" or "legal" investigation, and (2) a "safety" investigation (see 10 USC §2254(a)(2)) ... snip ... Legal and safety investigators may, and often do, interview the same witnesses. The legal investigator, however, cannot access or use privileged information from the safety investigation. Evidence gathered during legal investigations may be used in civil litigation as well as in military criminal and adverse administrative proceedings. Therefore, witnesses must be advised of their rights against self-incrimination and of representation by counsel -- an advisement which often proves counter-productive to accident prevention."

What that part in bold is really saying is that because witnesses in AIBs must be advised of their rights (they were in the Brown case, weren't they? ROTFLOL!), they might not actually get to the truth of what happened.

You seem to be confused about the purpose of separating the legal and safety investigations. The purpose is to not cover up or to confuse you.

The separate investigations exist because there are two competing objectives:

1. The overriding desire to learn from any and all mistakes that were made in an accident to prevent future accidents of the same nature.

2. The requirement to hold accountable those who may be legally and criminally responsible for an accident.

These two objectives are often mutually exclusive of each other.

To wit: let's say I'm a fighter jock in a training mission. I'm a typical fighter jock (type A personality) and my one and only focus is to complete the mission successfully. In my zeal to complete my mission, I have neglected to monitor my fuel state. I ignore the several warnings the jet gives me that it is running short of fuel. By the time I figure out that I'm low on fuel, I don't have the gas to get home. I end up punching out and the jet impacts a family home killing people. Now I'm fictionalizing here , but believe me similar accidents have happened. I'm sure Darth Rotor and Beachnut will agree with me.

Now, you as Mr. John Q Public, who just lost a child in that house wants someone held responsible. You demand an investigation, and if that investigation finds someone criminally responsible you demand that person be punished. You as Mr. John Q. Public have every right to these demands. Hence the AIB (JAGMAN in the Navy/Marine Corps). But like any investigation that can lead to legal action, the rights of the suspect must be protected. (The Constitution) happens to apply to military members, particularly the right against self incrimination.

Also, we have Maverick, a fighter jock, who flies the same jet as the one I crashed. Maverick is upset about the possibility of his jet running out of fuel without him knowing it. He wants to know if there was a fuel line break (mechanical failure) or if the jet failed to provide warnings that it should have when it was running low on fuel. He wants to know when and if I noticed I was running low and fuel and what I did when I discovered this fact. All these questions directly affect Mavericks continued ability to safely operate his jet. Now how can I admit that i screwed up without worrying about the possible legal consequences? Hence, the concept of privileged information and the SIB. Whatever I say to the SIB will only be used to educate Maverick and his comrades about my mistakes. To protect my constitutional rights, this information must be firewalled from the JAGMAN investigation. And when the JAGMAN comes to interview me I have the same rights every other American citizen has. If I choose to invoke the 5th with the JAGMAN, but the JAGMAN finds sufficient evidence from other sources, I can and will be held responsible.

That's why we have two separate investigations.

 

[funk de fino]

But not always, as the pathologists in this case have pointed out. And they never looked for an exit wound, as the witnesses have admitted. Furthermore, why do you assume there would be an exit wound. Sometimes, bullets end up inside a body. And Cogswell stated that one of the x-rays of the body showed an anomolous object. But we don't know what that object was since no autopsy was done.

Aks Jackie kennedy about that. That is why I am asking, there are variables, type of gun, range of shot, type of bullet. Where was he shot and from how far? is it accepted it was a 45 round? If so there will be a huge exit wound. usually if there is a bullet that tumbles inside the body it is a body shot which hits one of the larger bones. Head shots generally leave a huge exit wound.

Have you ever fired a weapon with a 45 round? have you ever seen a real live exit wound?

Where was the entry wound on his head? How far away do you think the shooter was?

The *speculation* of pathologists certainly is evidence. They present that *speculation* in court rooms all the time. Along with the photos of wounds and x-rays that the pathologists base their *speculation* on. As we have here in this instance. Your specious argument shows a degree of desperation, sir.

Your cherrypicking of my point shows a greater degree of desperation? I am glad you agree you have no proof.

My expertise is not the issue. Nor is yours. What matters is the expertise of the forensic pathologist who was at the crash site and looked for anything that might have caused the injury in Brown's head. And he was rated as one of the top pathologists in the Air Force. He was an expert on gunshot and plane crashes.

Yes it is. Are you saying he walked about the crash site looking? No documenting in the hangar? How long was he searching?

But I'm not convinced you even read it at all. Not when you ask questions that I already addressed in the thread.

Just give me a clear timeline and summary of your theory of what happened? In one post, what is the problem with that? Convince me!

I've been quite polite on this thread. In fact, I'd say that evidence shows the members of your side in this debate have been the ones demonstrating all those unpleasant traits.

In your own words

Again, read the thread. It's there if you only look.

Let me guess. You're from Australia? So what is your interest in the Brown matter since you know admittedly know nothing about it? Do you even know who Brown was? Why would you spend the precious time you can devote to this forum on a thread where it wouldn't appear you have any real interests?

No, wrong. Not a democrat, in fact a nationalist. Yes, I do know who he was, I have read this post in an attempt to learn more. Its what people do, they look at things and try to learn, it is in our nature. I have plenty of time to learn new things. It is never a waste to learn new things.

Again, read the thread. It's there if you only look.

See above, what is the problem? Just give it your best shot?

 

[BeAChooser]

You seem to be confused about the purpose of separating the legal and safety investigations.

I'm not confused at all. I was just pointing out to beachnut and darth rotor a study done by the military that indicates that because AIB "witnesses must be advised of their rights against self-incrimination and of representation by counsel", AIBs can be "counter-productive to accident prevention" ... presumably because under those circumstances the witnesses might not be honest and forthcoming. That was in response to their seeing no reason to have SIBs.

1. The overriding desire to learn from any and all mistakes that were made in an accident to prevent future accidents of the same nature.

Would there be a desire to avoid a repeat of a situation where one of the passengers (a VIP, no less) is murdered and the plane is spoofed into hitting a mountain to cover it up? I'm not saying that definitely happened, but the evidence is sufficient to warrant an autopsy and the facts are not inconsistent with spoofing as the reason the plane hit the mountain. But by skipping the SIB, the Air Force jumped to the assumption that it was an "accident".

2. The requirement to hold accountable those who may be legally and criminally responsible for an accident.

And wouldn't what the pathologists say and what the x-rays show be an important factor in that accountability? Yet the AIB in this case ignored both and didn't even include them in the final report. Seems to me your logic just fell apart.

 

[stanleywinthrop]

I'm not confused at all. I was just pointing out to beachnut and darth rotor a study done by the military that indicates that because AIB "witnesses must be advised of their rights against self-incrimination and of representation by counsel", AIBs can be "counter-productive to accident prevention" ... presumably because under those circumstances the witnesses might not be honest and forthcoming. That was in response to their seeing no reason to have SIBs.



Would there be a desire to avoid a repeat of a situation where one of the passengers (a VIP, no less) is murdered and the plane is spoofed into hitting a mountain to cover it up? I'm not saying that definitely happened, but the evidence is sufficient to warrant an autopsy and the facts are not inconsistent with spoofing as the reason the plane hit the mountain. But by skipping the SIB, the Air Force jumped to the assumption that it was an "accident".



And wouldn't what the pathologists say and what the x-rays show be an important factor in that accountability? Yet the AIB in this case ignored both and didn't even include them in the final report. Seems to me your logic just fell apart.

So you are telling me that the supposed hole in brown's head and what the pathologists 'know' is the cause of the accident?

 

[Darth Rotor]

But you said yourself that by going straight to the AIB, they were calling it an accident.

No, you just said that. Why? You choose to remain ignorant, despite my, and beachnuts more detailed, best efforts in explaing the process that is used to investigate aircraft mishaps by the US military. Your "fingers in ears" lalalala BS is no longer entertaining.

A mishap. An aircraft mishap. That is a doctrinal term. CFIT is generally accidental. Crashes are not normally intentional.

The assumption, in April 1996, that a convoluted murder plot would be the primary reason to inform an investigating team would require information, EVIDENCE, to be available to the convening authority that a murder or intentional downing of the aircraft (for example, someone seeing a missile trail rising from the ground near the crash site) that warrants a change from SOP. Why is that? Because the experience over some decades gleaned from aircraft mishaps, non combat losses, has been used to establish very effective SOP's.

It really is that simple. (You do not seem to know how to use the word "presumption" versus "assumption" but at this point, who cares?)

Pilot error is one of the only reasons they could have come up as cause of an "accident", given that they found no mechanical problems. So they were assuming, as I think you are, they made a mistake.

No, you miss the point made multiple times. Pilot error is a causal factor, and 70-80 percent of military aviation mishaps (crashes) include pilot error as a causal factor. You don't even know how to use the word "only" correctly. Typically, if you take pilot error out of the links in the chain, mishaps are prevented. That again is the acquired wisdom of the Naval Safety Center (and for that matter the Army Safety Center, FAA, USAF, etc.)

Or maybe it would prove your assumption about pilot error needs another look.

No. That you willfully ignore the information provided to you means that you have long since chosen to remain willfully ignorant.

The finding by the AIB was that pilot error was a causal factor, and I am content with that finding based on my own experiences in investigating aircraft mishaps.

Since you cannot even get the simple stuff right, and are being willfully stupid, you are welcomed to live in the Land of Deluded, population you.

ETA: Note on assumptions.

In order for your CT to formulate, the following assumptions must be in operation:

General Fogleman follows unlawful orders, and issues them
Each member of the AIB did not pursue with vigor finding out what happened: carelessness was commonplace, thus evidence overlooked or ignored, and in some cases deliberatey suppressed
An assassin was willing to risk dying in a crash, or, if the weather cleared before arrival in Dubrovnik, risk being found out when the plane lands and Brown is dead, and everyone else alive
The assassin has control of the weather, or is a superb forecaster who can ensure his mission is a success so that an NDB spoofs the plane into a mountain and the pilots can't see the ground.

And more. If you can't build a sound theory of your case, as a detective or lawyer does when trying to solve a crime, you have no case. Your theory does not stand up. Your preconditions are necessary, but not valid. What is necessary when a theory does not fit the evidence available is to . . . come up with a new theory. The theory the AIB came up with fit the evidence with sufficient fidelity to arrive at a reasonable conclusion.

Yours does not.

Cheers.

DR

ETA:

Parsimony: Go back to the approach plate, and re read beachnuts points about the MDA. The margin for error is less than 500' vertically. To further understand, draw a point on a piece of paper, and then draw six lines radiating out from the center. Those represent bearing lines, generated by AC current and transmitted like AM radio signals, that ADF receivers interpret on the compass card/HSI/RMI in a cockpit. These are depicted by a needle on the compass card that tell the pilot on which beam of the beacon he is riding. Notice how farther from the beacon, the radials get farther apart from one another. If you are off by one degree, you get further off desired course over the ground, left or right, the further you get from the beacon. Note also that if you have a single ADF receiver, you would have to switch between them to determine when the MAP has been reached.

(That is why the pilot had begun timing, IMO, as a back up means of estimating when he should switch to the second beacon to know to commence the missed approach, or to determine that his copilot has the field in sight and to proceed visually to a landing.) If you switch frequencies back and forth, any drift you may have, left or right, on a radial will take a moment to show itself in the RMI card. So it looks the same on the card, one degree or another, irrespective of range, but the beams for any given direction (say 147 deg magnetic, or 148 degress magnetic) are geographically further apart.

As beachnut pointed out, it wasn't much of an error, but it was enough to hit a mountain.

 

[gnome]

Someone else said it, and I'd like to repeat it.

Was nobody else shot? Seems kind of far-fetched that the seekrit assassination squad that made it to the plane first to take out Brown, found that miraculously he was the only one to survive the crash...

 

[BeAChooser]

Where was he shot and from how far? is it accepted it was a 45 round?

Don't you think we should just do an autopsy first and find out if a bullet caused the injury? That's usually what they do. You are only insisting on speculation because you don't want an autopsy. Which leaves me wondering why ...

If so there will be a huge exit wound. usually if there is a bullet that tumbles inside the body it is a body shot which hits one of the larger bones. Head shots generally leave a huge exit wound.

Are you a pathologist? If not, then your *expertise* is no better than the 911Twoofers who challenge the expertise of structural engineers and assorted other REAL experts. And the real experts in this case ... all the pathologists who have been quoted ... don't seem to agree with you. Now if you care to quote a pathologist in this case, I'll be happy to listen. But so far, I seem to be the only one doing that.

Have you ever fired a weapon with a 45 round? have you ever seen a real live exit wound?

Whether I have or not is immaterial because nothing you or I claim can be proven. You could be a bum visiting the library for all I know. Don't you think its best if we stick to sources we both can verify?

Where was the entry wound on his head?

If you don't even know that, perhaps you should try and find out. I've provided plenty of links through which you could do that.

I am glad you agree you have no proof.

Says the disinterested guy who admits he doesn't even know where the head wound was located. Too busy to find out, I guess.

Are you saying he walked about the crash site looking?

Is English your second language?

Just give me a clear timeline and summary of your theory of what happened?

No, I think I'll not waste my time with you. You can look for the one already posted on this thread, as well as the material that shows where the head wound was located.

No, wrong. Not a democrat

But I didn't ask if you were a democRAT. I asked if you were from Australia.

Yes, I do know who he was

Really? Then you know he was up to his eyeballs in corruption.

I have read this post in an attempt to learn more. Its what people do, they look at things and try to learn, it is in our nature.

But that's not what you did. Your first statement on this thread was an unfriendly post and lie based on a lie. Here it is:

" This whole thread tells me you are morbidly obssessed about a wound that looks like a bullet wound yet there is no exit wound

Nothing else, nothing more

So pardon me if I don't buy your innocent act now. You joined this thread acting like you already knew the answers. You joined this thread with your mind already made up and bent on arguing against the allegations I've put forth. With no data to actually argue with.

I have plenty of time to learn new things.

Then you should have plenty of time to use your browser and find the facts in this case. No need for anyone to spoon feed you.

 

[BeAChooser]

So you are telling me that the supposed hole in brown's head and what the pathologists 'know' is the cause of the accident?

Sigh. Did you really get that from what I wrote on this thread? Or do you just like strawmen?

 

[stanleywinthrop]

Sigh. Did you really get that from what I wrote on this thread? Or do you just like strawmen?

The point I'm getting at is the AIB ignored the alleged hole in Brown's head and didn't order autopsies on Brown because those two things are IRRELEVANT to the airplane crash and its causes. You've posted nothing that even approaches proof regarding the crash itself. If you suspect Brown was murdered by a bullet to the head, you should engage the FBI. An AIB is not a murder investigation and will not and cannot investigate such claims. Using the fact that the AIB did not address the alleged Brown murder to support your claims is like saying 9/11 was an inside job because the NTSB didn't investigate the Al Queda connections to the hijackers.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
But you said yourself that by going straight to the AIB, they were calling it an accident.

No, you just said that.

Let me quote you from post #61: "when you convene an Accident Investigation Board, the aim is to investigate the accident. If you convene a Murder Ivestigation Board, then you investigate a murder."

Your "fingers in ears" lalalala BS is no longer entertaining.

Dig dig dig, DR. That's your credibility going bye bye.

The assumption, in April 1996, that a convoluted murder plot would be the primary reason to inform an investigating team would require information, EVIDENCE, to be available to the convening authority that a murder or intentional downing of the aircraft (for example, someone seeing a missile trail rising from the ground near the crash site) that warrants a change from SOP.

But you don't think high skilled forensic pathologists saying "bullet wound" , seeing a "lead snowstorm" in the x-rays of Brown's head and calling for an autopsy would qualify? Dig dig dig, DR. ROTFLOL!

The finding by the AIB was that pilot error was a causal factor, and I am content with that finding based on my own experiences in investigating aircraft mishaps.

The AIB didn't even acknowledge the existence of those pathologist opinions, nor what the photo and x-rays show. What you are content to do is stick your head in the ground. Which leaves me wondering why ...

General Fogleman follows unlawful orders, and issues them

Are you saying that by law there must be an SIB? Or did Fogleman simply do what the President ordered?

Each member of the AIB did not pursue with vigor finding out what happened

No, most members of the AIB simply did their jobs and knew nothing of what was going on behind the scenes.

An assassin was willing to risk dying in a crash, or, if the weather cleared before arrival in Dubrovnik, risk being found out when the plane lands and Brown is dead, and everyone else alive

Again, you totally mischaracterize the possibilities. You simply ignore the scenario that I've pointed you to repeatedly which does not require an assassin on board the plane. But in any case, it's even worse that you ignore the expertise of the pathologists.

The assassin has control of the weather, or is a superb forecaster who can ensure his mission is a success so that an NDB spoofs the plane into a mountain and the pilots can't see the ground.

Again, you mischaracterize and ignore the facts. The change in flight plane to visit Dubrovnick occurred only after the weather and what it would be in the days ahead was known with a high degree of certainty.

If you can't build a sound theory of your case, as a detective or lawyer does when trying to solve a crime, you have no case.

This complaint is particularly laughable. Any detective or lawyer would tell you the first thing they'd want to know before trying to solve a crime is whether there was a crime. They'd be demanding that autopsy that you don't seem to even care about.

Your theory does not stand up.

Dig dig dig, DR. There goes your credibility. I can see why you expressed concern that your behavior in the Ron Brown case not be mentioned in other discussions.

 

[BeAChooser]

Was nobody else shot? Seems kind of far-fetched that the seekrit assassination squad that made it to the plane first to take out Brown, found that miraculously he was the only one to survive the crash...

Nobody else had a head wound. Seems kind of far-fetched that only Ron Brown would have such an injury given all that metal you folks claim was flying around during the crash ...

 

[BeAChooser]

The point I'm getting at is the AIB ignored the alleged hole in Brown's head and didn't order autopsies on Brown because those two things are IRRELEVANT to the airplane crash and its causes.

ROTFLOL! This reasoning, folks, demonstrates just how desperate certain people are that the Ron Brown crash not be looked at closely.

Tell me, why did they do autopsies on certain individuals in the crash if the way they died was irrelevant to the AIB? Why did they include that information in the AIB report if it was irrelevant? But since they did include it, why didn't they also include the information from Ron Brown's examination? Why did they apparently lie in the report and claim he was autopsied (I say this because the FSD article I cited earlier, which is based on looking at the AIB report, makes the claim that everyone on the plane was autopsied and that would presumably include Brown)?

If you suspect Brown was murdered by a bullet to the head, you should engage the FBI.

This is a favorite tactic of people who are running from the facts. You don't think the FBI is aware of these allegations? You think the FBI is immune from political pressures to do or not do investigations? ROTFLOL!

An AIB is not a murder investigation and will not and cannot investigate such claims.

One of the prime reasons for conducting AIB's is to produce a document that can be used in lawsuits regarding the matter.

But you are correct in one sense. If there is ANY suspicion that a VIP of Brown's stature has been murdered, the law requires that the FBI be called in. That was the law even then. Yet even though pathologists were openingly saying a wound looked like a bullet wound and calling for an autopsy, the FBI wasn't notified. And that was the AIB management's responsibility. So tell me ... why didn't THEY call the FBI?

Doing that, I imagine, would have brought the AIB to a halt or at least changed its character markedly. It was already a different sort of AIB from any in the past since some civilian organizations like the NTSB had been invited to participate. But FBI involvement certainly would have changed the focus. Then we might actually know for certain if the man who was responsible for the beacons at Dubrovnik really killed himself with a shotgun a few days after the crash over a failed romance. Then there would certainly have been an autopsy of Brown.

Using the fact that the AIB did not address the alleged Brown murder to support your claims is like saying 9/11 was an inside job because the NTSB didn't investigate the Al Queda connections to the hijackers.

Do I detect a hint of desperation?

 

[funk de fino]

Don't you think we should just do an autopsy first and find out if a bullet caused the injury? That's usually what they do. You are only insisting on speculation because you don't want an autopsy. Which leaves me wondering why ...

I have never said they should not do another autopsy? typical 911 truther mode of putting words in my mouth? Bias clouding your judgement?

Are you a pathologist? If not, then your *expertise* is no better than the 911Twoofers who challenge the expertise of structural engineers and assorted other REAL experts. And the real experts in this case ... all the pathologists who have been quoted ... don't seem to agree with you. Now if you care to quote a pathologist in this case, I'll be happy to listen. But so far, I seem to be the only one doing that.

Ex military, have fired high power automatic rifles and large bore rifles, have seen head shots and body shots on dead and injured. High calibre rifles or close range head shots will lead to large exit wound in most circumstances.

Whether I have or not is immaterial because nothing you or I claim can be proven. You could be a bum visiting the library for all I know. Don't you think its best if we stick to sources we both can verify?

see above, I have

If you don't even know that, perhaps you should try and find out. I've provided plenty of links through which you could do that.

You dont seem too interested showing me? Why not? A couple of words to put me straight?

Says the disinterested guy who admits he doesn't even know where the head wound was located. Too busy to find out, I guess.

If I was not interested I would no ask. I want you to tell me. Its your theory.

Is English your second language?

ha ha, you could say that, but snideness again

Is that what you are claiming, he searched around the crash site? for how long?

No, I think I'll not waste my time with you. You can look for the one already posted on this thread, as well as the material that shows where the head wound was located.

The one I seen was not a timeline that was succinct, it was all over the place. I want it in your own words exactly what you think happened. What you have posted does not answer some of my questions.

But I didn't ask if you were a democRAT. I asked if you were from Australia

I wont stoop to your snidey english comments suffice to say the full stop after "No, wrong" is there for a reason

I am not Australian or a democrat

Really? Then you know he was up to his eyeballs in corruption.

It looks like it

But that's not what you did. Your first statement on this thread was an unfriendly post and lie based on a lie. Here it is:

I read the thread and commented on what I had seen up to that point, now I am asking you more you will not put out? I never knew the details till I read the thread so how could I have my mind made up? Contradiction Time again?

I know aircraft and I know aircraft systems very well, so I have data on that. This helps me sometimes when I see people posting stuff about things that are incorrect. Like nothing on the aircraft could have caused that wound? Incorrect.

So pardon me if I don't buy your innocent act now. You joined this thread acting like you already knew the answers. You joined this thread with your mind already made up and bent on arguing against the allegations I've put forth. With no data to actually argue with.

See above

Then you should have plenty of time to use your browser and find the facts in this case. No need for anyone to spoon feed you.

Your theory you prove the theory to me. You have done the research why not share it?

ETA I cannot access any of BAC links to look at photos or any other info in them