Brown murder conspiracy split from Bush v Clinton Impeachment

[BeAChooser]

You seem to be doing some cherry-picking here. You quote the forensics people when they have a sound bite you like, but do you have a source for them saying "The x-rays show neither bullet nor exit wound, and I have seen neither bullet nor exit wound, but this is still consistent with a gunshot wound because..."?

So you claim that I've fudged what the forensics people said? So you claim I'm cherry picking their comments. But you have no evidence of it ... just your *feelings*? Perhaps the problem is that you haven't bothered to investigate any of the other threads where this topic has been discussed. You haven't used your browser to look up the allegations concerning Ron Brown. If you had, you would have seen many of the sources citing the pathologist's statements.

If you want to read what the various forensic pathologists and the photographer said, you need only learn to use your web browser, instead of making more wild accusations in your desperate attempt to make this allegation disappear. You'll have no trouble finding those quotes and none of them will be inconsistent with what I've posted on this or on any of the other JREF threads.

You can start with the list of sources below:

*********

"Experts Differ on Ron Brown's Head Wound" By Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 3, 1997 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/03/35938

"Even if you safely assumed accidental plane crash, when you got something that appears to be a homicide, that should bring everything to a screeching halt," Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell, a doctor and deputy medical examiner with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, told the Tribune-Review.

In several interviews, Cogswell repeatedly referred to the wound as "an apparent gunshot wound." However, he also said, "Whether it's a bullet or something else, we don't know."

... snip ...

"Essentially ... Brown had a .45-inch inwardly beveling circular hole in the top of his head, which is essentially the description of a .45-caliber gunshot wound," Cogswell added.

... snip ...

"I talked to Col. Gormley and he told me there is a .45(-inch) inwardly beveling, perfectly circular hole in the top of (Brown's) head," Cogswell said.

... snip ...

"Open him up. This man needs an autopsy," Cogswell said he told Gormley. "This whole thing stinks."

... snip ...

Cogswell also felt it would be very difficult for any rod or similar item to pierce the skull then exit, leaving a perfect hole as it did. His suspicions grew upon his return to the United States when he spoke to AFIP colleagues who had stayed at Dover. He also reviewed the photographic and X-ray evidence. "I talked to a few people who were there from our office and asked them ... if they thought this wound looked like a gunshot wound, or, `What do you think the hole looked like?' And the uniform response was, `Yeah, it looked like a gunshot wound.'" he said.

... snip ...

Her photos would later become part of Cogswell's slide program. He tells his audiences that the frontal head X-ray shows the defect at the top of the head, and something perhaps more sinister. Inside the left side of Brown's head, in the area behind his eye socket, "there are multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density on X-ray. That's what we might describe as a `lead snowstorm' from a high-velocity gunshot wound."

... snip ...

The Tribune-Review obtained copies of those images as well as detailed photos of Brown's body and the circular wound. All were shown to Dr. Martin Fackler, former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory in San Francisco.

While acknowledging he is not a pathologist, Fackler said he thought it "very difficult to see" how something like a rivet could have produced the head wound. He also said brain matter was visible. "It's round as hell. That is extremely round," Fackler said with a chuckle. "I'm impressed by how very, very round that hole is. That's unusual except for a gunshot wound. It's unusual for anything else."

Fackler said he could not rule it a gunshot without a full autopsy and better X-rays. He said the supposed metal fragments on the first X-ray were not conclusive because they were very small, an autopsy had not been conducted to locate them, and a side X-ray was overexposed, giving little detail of the head. "They didn't do an autopsy. My God. It's astounding," he said.

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

"Second Expert: Brown's Wound Appeared to be From Gunshot" By Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 9, 1997 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/09/34206

A second Armed Forces medical examiner has stepped forward to publicly confirm key statements made by a colleague about the death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. U.S. Army Lt. Col. David Hause (pronounced "hoss"), a deputy armed forces medical examiner, told the Tribune-Review he personally examined a suspicious head wound on Brown's corpse while it was being examined at Dover Air Force Base, Del. He said several allegations made by Air Force Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell in a Tribune-Review article last week are true. Hause also expressed criticism of the military's treatment of Cogswell in the wake of that article.

... snip ...

Cogswell was not present at Dover when the wound was examined, but Hause was. According to Hause, his examination table was only two tables away from the one on which Brown's body was laid out. "A commotion" erupted, he said, when someone said, "Gee, this looks like a gunshot wound." Hause said he left his examination table to view the wound. He remembers saying, "Sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too."

He said the wound "looked like a punched-out .45-caliber entrance hole."

... snip ...

Hause agreed that "by any professional standard" an autopsy should have been conducted on Brown's body, but said he understood that "political and administrative" factors made it difficult for one to be conducted. Even so, he suggested that Gormley should have consulted with superiors to get authority, or if that was impossible, sought permission from the next of kin. After viewing the wound, Hause said he did not pursue the issue or investigate further. "I made the presumption the reason (Gormley) concluded it wasn't a gunshot wound, (and) therefore there was no need to go further, was that he looked at the X-rays" and found no evidence of a bullet, Hause explained.

... snip ...

Additionally, Cogswell and another expert consulted by the Tribune-Review said a side X-ray indicates a "bone plug" from the hole displaced under the skull and into the brain. Hause's eyewitness examination also contradicts Gormley. "What was immediately below the surface of the hole was just brain. I didn't remember seeing skull" in the hole, he said. Hause concluded that the piece of skull "punched out" by the impacting object had displaced into the head.

... snip ...

According to Hause, all that remains of the head X-rays are photographic slide images in the possession of Cogswell and copies of images possessed by the Tribune-Review. Hause said the disturbing facts raised by Cogswell, including the missing X-rays, have not drawn an appropriate reaction from AFIP officials. "It looks like the AFIP is starting its usual procedure of, upon receiving bad news, immediately shooting the messenger," Hause commented in reference to administrative actions taken against Cogswell in recent days.

... snip ...

On Friday, Hause said a commotion developed in the office when a military police officer showed up and asked Cogswell to accompany him to Cogswell's home to retrieve all slides and photos in his possession relating to AFIP cases. "One of the things I'm wondering is why all the attention is focused on Cogswell, who never had the original X-rays," Hause said.

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

"Wecht: Autopsy Needed in Brown Case" by Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 17, 1997 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/17/32921

One of the nation's most prominent forensic pathologists says there was "more than enough" evidence to suggest possible homicide in the death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, and an autopsy should have been conducted on his body.

Allegheny County Coroner Cyril Wecht reached these conclusions after reviewing photographs of Brown's body, photo images of X-rays of Brown's head and body, and the report of the forensic pathologist for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology who examined the corpse.

... snip ...

Wecht scoffs at skeptics who dismiss the possibility of Brown being found with a bullet after a plane crash. "It's happened," Wecht said. "It's in the literature. It's rare, but it can happen, and evidence of a possible gunshot should not be ignored." After reviewing the evidence, Wecht reached several broad conclusions.

"It's not even arguable in the field of medical legal investigations whether an autopsy should have been conducted on Brown," Wecht 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 continued. He noted that it's standard procedure to conduct autopsies on all victims in a plane crash. Forget about Brown being a cabinet member, or being under investigation," Wecht added. "He was in a plane crash. That alone should have meant he was autopsied."

... snip ...

Wecht, who is also a lawyer, agrees with Cogswell. "There was more than enough evidence of a possible homicide to call in the FBI so that (the autopsy could have been conducted) and a gunshot could have been ruled out," Wecht said. "The military had a duty to notify the (Brown) family, and if the family didn't allow an autopsy, go to another authority to have it conducted. (AFIP) had a duty to do an autopsy," the coroner continued.

... snip ...

"I'm troubled," Wecht added. "They did a tremendous disfavor to the families by not conducting autopsies." For one thing, he noted, survivors may have been left with weaker legal claims for damages.

As for the wound itself, Wecht said, "Anytime you have a circular, symmetrical hole, a pathologist knows that one of the distinct mechanisms for making such a defect is a bullet. "It's not the only one (but) you have to consider it," he added. "The answer lies in the autopsy."

... snip ...

Wecht did not rule out the possibility that a piece of the aircraft could have caused the hole, but agreed with Cogswell that such a "perfectly circular" hole would be difficult to achieve with parts of the plane. Wecht, like Cogswell, said the possibility of a bullet should have immediately been ruled out by opening the skull and looking for a bullet track through the brain.

After analyzing a photograph of the wound, Wecht also identified tiny fracture lines in the skull that he said "would not be inconsistent with a gunshot wound."

... snip ...

Most bothersome, Wecht said, was his identification of almost a half-dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver-colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the circular wound itself and near the hole. These "do suggest metallic fragments," he said. "Little pieces of metal can be found at, or near, an entry site when a bullet enters bone," he explained.

These flecks should have been collected for further analysis, Wecht said, though he noted they aren't by themselves proof of a gunshot. "It just makes it more consistent with one," he said. If the metal is from a bullet, he believes the array of fragments in the scalp would indicate a shot was fired before the crash.

Wecht said a review of a photographic image of the first frontal X-ray of Brown's head may show, as Cogswell first suggested, "what we say in the jargon of forensic pathology is a lead snowstorm" of fragments left by a disintegrating bullet.

... snip ...

Wecht jested that disappearance of the X-rays, which Gormley says would support his conclusions, fit what he calls Wecht's Law: "The frequency of lost X-rays, hospital records, documents, autopsy materials and other materials in a medical-legal investigation is directly in proportion to the complexity, controversy and external challenges" to a given case. In reality, Wecht said, "you'll find it is very, very rare" to have X-rays missing from a case file.

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

"Pathologists Dispute Claims in Brown Probe" by Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGE TRIBUNE-REVIEW, January 11, 1998 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/1/11/32000

One of the officers, Air Force Maj. Thomas Parsons, for the first time spoke publicly on the matter Saturday. The forensic pathologist joined two other AFIP medical examiners in disputing government claims about Brown's death after an Air Force jet carrying him and 34 others crashed in Croatia on April 3, 1996.

... snip ...

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.

... snip ...

Hause told Spencer he thought it was "probably not" a gunshot, but at no point did he rule out the possibility that it was. Hause said he emphasized to Spencer that the wound was very consistent with an "exotic weapon," such as a captive-bolt gun.

... snip ...

According to Hause, Spencer asked if he agreed with Gormley's findings. Hause responded that the death was "probably" accidental, but that there was insufficient evidence to say Brown died of blunt force injuries as a result of the plane crash.

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."

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."

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

"Fourth Expert Claims Probe of Brown's Death Botched" by Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, January 13, 1998 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/1/13/173306

The head of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology's forensic photography unit, like three senior officials before her, has come forward to publicly claim that the military improperly handled the investigation of the death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown.

Chief Petty Officer Kathleen Janoski, a 22-year Navy veteran, also says she was told missing evidence of a possible homicide had been purposely destroyed. Janoski, the senior enlisted person at AFIP's Rockville, Md., offices, was present when Brown's body was examined by military pathologists at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware.

... snip ...

Janoski said she was stunned that AFIP's inquiry focused on the actions of Cogswell when she felt the real issue was AFIP's handling of Brown's death. "The investigation is nothing more than a witch hunt. (AFIP) should be investigating what happened to the missing head X-rays. No one at AFIP seems to care that Brown did not receive an autopsy," Janoski said.

... snip ...

"Wow, look at the hole in Ron Brown's head. It looks like a gunshot wound," Janoski recalls exclaiming.

... snip ...

Gormley, who has approximately 25 years of experience in pathology, has said that he, too, identified the wound as a "red flag" and that he consulted with other pathologists present, including Hause and Navy Cmdr. Edward Kilbane. "They agreed it looked like an entrance gunshot wound," Gormley recalled in a recent television interview.

... snip ...

Janoski alleges Sentell told her the original X-rays of Brown's head had been replaced in the case file. Janoski said she remembers that Sentell specifically told her "the first head X-ray that showed a `lead snowstorm' was destroyed, and a second X-ray, that was less dense, was taken."

Janoski said she had to ask "What are you talking about?" in reference to Sentell's phrase "lead snowstorm." According to Janoski, Sentell explained that a lead snowstorm is the description of a pattern of metal fragments that appears on an X-ray after a bullet has disintegrated inside a body.

... snip ...

One of the pathologists involved questions the timing of AFIP's explanation. "I find it interesting that this explanation about the film cartridge defect came after Lt. Col. Cogswell made his allegations, and not at the time we were at Dover," said Hause. Hause, who made these comments to the Tribune-Review before a gag order had been placed on AFIP staff, said he does not recall ever being told there was a problem with the X-rays.

***********

"Kathleen Janoski Describes Cover-Up in Ron Brown Investigation" By Carl of Oyster Bay, FOR THE WASHINGTON WEEKLY, April 26, 1998 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/4/26/01704

GRANT: We do have here on the line, Chief Petty Officer, United States Navy and chief of forensic photography with Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Kathleen Janoski. And she alleges that there has been a cover-up in the investigation of Ron Brown. Ms. Janoski, I welcome you to the Bob Grant program via the telephone. I understand that you have received some threats of one type or another. That there's been some pressure brought to bear to have you cease and desist from speaking out. Is that true?

JANOSKI: Yes that is. Essentially what's happening is that I'm being punished as a whistleblower because I went on record with The Pittsburgh Tribune Review back in January. I used to be chief of forensic photography but I was kicked out of my office with essentially 32 hours notice and forced to walk away from a quarter million dollar inventory that I'm still assigned responsibility for.

... snip ...

JANOSKI: It's actually the Army and the Air Force Colonel who's in charge of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. What it is - there's four of us altogether, (Lt. Col. Steve) Cogswell, (Lt. Col. David) Hause, myself and (Air Force Major Thomas) Parsons. And we all went on the record saying that Ron Brown had what appeared to be an apparent gunshot wound to the head - and that Ron Brown needed an autopsy, which he did not receive.

... snip ...

JANOSKI: Well, actually it wasn't a mark. It was a hole in his skull. It was perfectly round, inwardly beveling and it's diameter was .45 inches. And it had punctured the skull. Brain was showing. And that's essentially what we said: that Ron Brown had a wound that appeared consistent with an apparent gunshot wound and that he needed an autopsy. (Janoski has FBI training in gunshot wound analysis). And because of that we're essentially being punished by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.

... snip ...

GRANT: You also made an allegation that x-rays were destroyed to hide evidence of a possible bullet wound.

JANOSKI: Well, what happened was - we have a Naval criminal investigative agent who's assigned to our office. And about six months after the crash she told me that the first set of x-rays were deliberately destroyed because they showed a "lead snowstorm". And a second set of x-rays were taken and they were deliberately made less dense to try to diminish or eradicate that "lead snowstorm". A Naval criminal investigative agent assigned to my office told me this.

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.

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

And if those aren't sufficient to convince you of my honesty, there are more sources available. Use your browser. You will not make the pathologist assertions go away by pretending they didn't make those assertions. You will only end up embarrassing yourself and damaging your own credibility.

If you think you have multiple plausible scenarios for how we get the wound and the x-ray, by all means give us more than one. I'm criticising you for not providing even one, not for providing too many.

ROTFLOL! I have provided one. You even restated the basics of it in your first post of this exchange. I expanded on it in post #32 of this thread. Weren't you paying attention? And you certainly haven't demonstrated that it is implausible. Your *feelings* certainly don't do that.

BAC - 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).

Now it looks like you are just making things up and then trying to foist the burden of proof on to us. It's up to you to explain where the bullet went, if you want to invoke miraculous hidden bullets or conveniently unnoticed exit wounds. Wouldn't it cast serious doubt on the competence of these forensic pathologists of yours if they failed to notice a second hole in a corpse's head, even with an x-ray to help them?

Your desperation is quite apparent. I'm not making anything up as the many sources I've provided prove. Why are you so desperate about this, Kevin, that you'd destroy your own credibility with this silly tactic? Could you perhaps be an admirer of Clinton's? Or do liberals stick together no matter what country they come from? Am I wrong about you being a liberal?

In any case, the competence of one pathologist is indeed in doubt. During the examination, only one pathologist was directly involved in concluding Brown died by blunt force trauma. That was Gormley. And the reasons he officially gave for that conclusion are that only bone (not brain) was visible in the hole and that x-rays showed nothing unusual.

But as I've noted ... as I've proven via various sources quoting the various pathologists, including later admissions by Gormley, both of those claims were false. Brain matter was visible in the wound. In fact, if YOU look at the side x-ray of the head, even YOU can see that the bone plug is displaced away from the hole. Even YOU can look at the photo of the wound and see the hole has not bone but some substance that looks like brain in it. And even YOU can look at the frontal x-ray and see something unusual.

As the statements by the various pathologists that I've posted show, a competent pathologist would have concluded right away that a bullet was a very possible cause and that Brown needed an autopsy. But no autopsy was done which either proves Gormley wasn't competent ... or he was under pressure from superiors. Now since Gormley had risen to his position in the military due to his competence, the likely explanation is that he was under pressure from superiors. And he eventually admitted that was the case ... admitted that the reasons he gave for ruling the death accidental were false ... admitted he was ordered not to do an autopsy. He also admitted that no effort was made to find an exit wound even though it was his job to do that. But then looking for an exit wound given his ruling of blunt force trauma might have seemed a little strange to all the people standing around watching. Hmmmm? And his body was rushed through the process at Dover. That's a fact. Again, superiors demanded that. Now it doesn't take a genius to figure out what was going on, Kevin. Or what stunt you are trying to pull.

"Australian who has no particular attachment to any US political party at all, and who thinks your story is bogus".

There you go "thinking" again. You accused me of making up the story. But all the sources I've provided show you are wrong. So now what will you do? Read those sources and admit you were wrong? My recommendation is that you learn to use the Empirical Method (where you base your conclusions on research and verifiable facts) rather than the Deductive Method (where you base your conclusions on an assumption that you make out of thin air). The later can lead you far astray, as it has here.

Frankly, the speed with which you try to slap the labels of desperation and Democratic party partisanship on anyone who disagrees with you makes you look very kooky indeed.

As I said, my experience has been on previous forums that those who resist looking at the facts and pull the sort of tactics you and others here have used ... usually turn out be staunch democRATS. Now maybe I'm going to have to revise my theory based on new data. So what could make someone who is not a toe-tag democRAT and an Australian risk his own credibility when he has no apparent reason to care about whether Brown was murdered or not? Why'd you even involve yourself in this discussion, Kevin? I don't involve myself in discussions I have no interest in ... but then that's just one data point.

I don't care about your story about motive.

Well maybe you should. You insist on a scenario and yet don't care about motive? Any prosecutor will tell you that proving motive is an essential ingredient in proving murder. And as you can see, there was lots of motive for keeping Brown from turning state's evidence in Chinagate and the Campaign Finance illegalities. But then being an Australian, perhaps you are unaware of those criminal activities?

I'm only interested in the facts of the actual crash

I don't see evidence of that. If you did, I think you would already have looked at the other threads where this has been discussed and you would have already verified that the pathologists said what I wrote. That's what I would have done. You wouldn't be sitting here claiming with no evidence whatsoever that I'm a liar and just made it all up on a topic that you don't have an apparent reason to even care about.

"Depressed guy who might have caused a crash through incompetence or neglect kills himself" is weaving a yarn, but "Eeevil Croatians killed him for Clinton after using his beacon to cause a crash" is not?

I ask you again, do you know who the son of the Croatian leader was? Do you know anything about the Croatian leader and his ties to the Clintons? Do you know anything about what that leader got from the US in the months after Brown died? Of course you don't, because you don't use the empirical method. You didn't do a dime's worth of research before responding to me.

Do you not think it strange that in ONE day the son reached the conclusion of suicide? Do you not think it strange that the man killed himself with a shotgun blast to the chest? Do you know the percentage of suicides by that means amongst suicides involving guns? And one more little fact you just ignore. The Croatian government didn't say he killed himself because he felt responsible for the crash ... they said their investigation showed he killed himself over a failed romance (other party still unnamed). So yes, Kevin, I think you are making up a yarn just to avoid addressing what the real experts in this case, the pathologists, had to say.

On the other hand, I cite no less an authority than Aviation Week for the scenario of a portable beacon spoofing the plane. Are you claiming AW has no expertise in such things, Kevin? And the US government admits there was a beacon missing. And there are numerous credible sources that list the connections between Clinton's administration and the Croatian leader, that describe the nature of the leader and his son, and describe what happened in the month's after Brown's death.

Occam's Razor says

Given that you don't seem to understand the difference between Empirical and Deductive Method, I rather doubt you really understand Occam's Razor either.

Sure, and the weather was known with such certainty so far in advance that this whole plot could be concocted and executed with the certainty it would work?

What do you mean, "so far in advance"? The fact are these. It was the time of the year for big storms in Croatia. By March 31st, weather forecasts show the latest foul weather is heading for Dubrovnik. Out of the blue, on the evening of April 1st, Brown gets ordered to meet the leader of Croatia, Tudjman, in Dubrovnik to "publicize the city's ability to attract tourists" (so Tracey Brown later claimed). Imagine that ... a 74 year old in bad health is going to go to little Dubrovnik to "promote tourism"? Anyway, Brown arrives (and dies) but it turns out Tudjman never even left for Dubrovnik. And then we learn that after words the Croatian government misdirects the search effort, delaying the rescue party by many hours from reaching the crash site. Facts, Kevin.

Oh, sorry, I misinterpreted what you were saying. Initial media reports got something wrong, what else is new?

And you are still misinterpreting what I said. I didn't say initial media reports. I said the Croatian government told US forces the wrong location for the crash site. I noted that the chief of the NATO air traffic control center cell in Zagreb, Rocky Swearengin, says the Croatians provided him the wrong coordinates for the crash site and they claimed NATO helicopters had verified them. He said when he tried to call Dubrovnik tower, Croatian officials would not talk to him. He is quoted saying "The night of the accident, when we really needed [Croatian] assistance, they were very uncooperative; nothing could get done."

And here's something else. Croatian authorities for weeks after the crash were telling the media that the planes crash position indicater (CPI) did not work. But the Air Force report says it was working when recovered. And Jure Kapetanovic, assistant minister of Civil Aviation, told the airport manager that the CPI was emitting a signal from somewhere between Kolocep Island and the old part of Dubrovnik ... the area over the ocean to which the helicopters were directed instead of to the actual crash site.

Quote:
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.

Put yourself in my shoes. Which is easier to believe? A partisan kook has cherry-picked some quotes and is handwaving away the problem of where the bullet went because he has no sensible answer, or a bevy of trained professionals missed a second hole in Brown's skull?

What I don't understand about you is why you won't use your browser to confirm the statements of the pathologists. It would have taken you all of ten minutes. Instead, you decide to use the Deductive Method with a faulty assumption and spend far more than that amount of time composing your latest response. Which by the way, totally mischaracterizes the facts. But then why should that surprise me?

 

[Drudgewire]

One thing about this theory that does make it more fun than the standard fare is the hilarious clip of Clinton at the funeral.

http://www.preventtruthdecay.com/mainmiscfuneral.htm

 

[BeAChooser]

One thing about this theory that does make it more fun than the standard fare is the hilarious clip of Clinton at the funeral.

Crocodile tears?

 

[Drudgewire]

Crocodile tears?

Indeed.

 

[Alt+F4]

What I don't understand about you is why you won't use your browser to confirm the statements of the pathologists. It would have taken you all of ten minutes. Instead, you decide to use the Deductive Method with a faulty assumption and spend far more than that amount of time composing your latest response. Which by the way, totally mischaracterizes the facts. But then why should that surprise me?

What I don't understand is why your browser goes nowhere else but Newsmax? Why does Christopher Ruddy hate the Clintons so much?

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2002/nmdistort.html

 

[BeAChooser]

What I don't understand is why your browser goes nowhere else but Newsmax? Why does Christopher Ruddy hate the Clintons so much?

Care to point out anything in those articles that is factually wrong? Or will we just hear more <crickets>?

And for the record, Newsmax mostly repeats articles found elsewhere. By the way, the Newsmax archive is down at the moment which you apparently didn't know because you couldn't even be troubled to check out the links I provided .

And I've cited many sources besides Christopher Ruddy (via the PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW). One that I linked above was the transcript of AN INTERVIEW with Janoski that Carl LIMBACHER of Oyster Bay quoted in the The Washington Weekly. Here's another article by Carl: http://freedompage.home.mindspring.com/RonBrown.htm.

It just happens that those were some of the few who cared enough to report all the facts in the Brown case and keep the facts on the internet in front of the public. But try as you might to muddy the water, we know for a fact that the pathologists said what is claimed. You could once even find audio recordings of Janoski (a democrat, by the way) and Larry Klayman (who defended her and at least one of the pathologists), telling the whole sorbid story. I myself heard them on live radio one time. So I know that Ruddy wasn't just making his details up, sir.

Here's a UPI story that covers a portion of the whole story: http://www.dickgregory.com/dick/10_ronbrown3.html I don't see it questioning the veracity of Ruddy's account.

Here's an Associated Press story on what Cogswell and other's said. http://www.dickgregory.com/dick/12_ronbrown5.html Again, I see nothing in the article to suggest Ruddy or Newsmax got anything wrong in their account of the story.

Here's Jack Cashill at WorldNetDaily saying the same things. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40678 By the way he wrote a book on the subject (http://www.amazon.com/Ron-Browns-Body-Presidency-Hillarys/dp/0785262377) and that's only one of many articles by him on the internet (see, for example, http://www.cashill.com/ronbrown/ronbrown2006_2.htm).

Here's a Wesley Phelan article in the Laissez Faire City Times on the Ron Brown investigation ... an interview with CPO Janoski. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a2b498c045c.htm Again, nothing to contradict what Ruddy or Newsmax reported.

Here's Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid of AIM (Accuracy In Media) reporting on the Ron Brown allegations. http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A3362_0_2_0_C/ Again, nothing that contradicts what Ruddy and Newsmax reported.

Here's a rense.com report on the allegation. http://www.rense.com/politics6/bullet.htm Again, everything in it aligns with what Ruddy and Carl reported to be the facts in their articles.

Here's CNN reporting on what Nolanda Hill said. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/23/trade.sale/

And there's a bunch of material on Brown at the Judicial Watch site. Such as this: http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/1997/printer_47.shtml You may not like Klayman but the truth is that much of what we learned about Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate and the Campaign Finance illegalities, we learned thanks to him and that organization. Here's an interview with Klayman: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/fixers/interviews/klayman.html Here's a document Judicial Watch submitted to the court on this case: http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/ois/cases/other/ronbrown/rbrown.htm.

As to your link http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2002/nmdistort.html "NewsMax's Reality Distortion Field", I would again ask you to point out SPECIFICALLY what items in the Newsmax stories I linked are false. I bet I'll hear <crickets>.

And by the way, I bet I could write the same sort of article about ANY source you might like ... WashingtonPost? NYTimes? LATimes? CBS? Go ahead, name one.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'll take the liberty of summing up your "evidence".

Pathologist: "No idea where the bullet went. No idea why there is no exit wound. All we have is a funny-looking entry wound and some metal fragments. This is consistent with a .45 bullet, except for the lack of a bullet or an exit wound." It also might just be consistent with a round chunk of metal about .45 inches in diameter hitting Brown in the head in the chaos of a plane crash.

Everything else is easily explained as run-of-the-mill cockups, and a desire on the part of both Croatia and the USAF to cover their backsides when a VIP from the world's most powerful nation dies on their doorstep.

Multiple things went wrong, but that's the nature of air disasters. Air disasters do not happen in this day and age unless multiple things go wrong.

As for why I'm interested, well, you might have noticed this is a message board for skeptics. We're often interested in whatever kookiness comes down the road, and this is certainly shaping up like kookiness.

 

[BeAChooser]

Pathologist: "No idea where the bullet went. No idea why there is no exit wound. All we have is a funny-looking entry wound and some metal fragments. This is consistent with a .45 bullet, except for the lack of a bullet or an exit wound."

Of course, the pathologists I cited said nothing remotely similar to that. They said that IF the hole was caused by a bullet, it would either still be in the body (below the head) or it would have exited the body via an exit wound. If there was an exit wound, they know exactly why no exit wound was found ... Gormley didn't look for one. He initially lied about that. And the entry hole isn't just "funny looking". According to the pathologists, who are after all experts in this, it looks EXACTLY like a bullet would look, and NOT like what they'd expect a hole created by some part of the aircraft. And those metal fragments you dismiss look to the pathologists like a lead snowstorm ... an often found characteristic of bullet wounds. Also, although it was about a 0.45 inch hole, you are probably jumping the gun in concluding it was definitely made by a 45 caliber weapon. As one of the pathologists noted, a smaller caliber weapon could make a larger hole.

It also might just be consistent with a round chunk of metal about .45 inches in diameter hitting Brown in the head in the chaos of a plane crash.

Except the pathologists don't agree with you. And Cogswell looked to see if anything at the crash site could have made that size hole. He found nothing that fit the ticket. But that didn't stop the AFIP management from claiming he did.

Everything else is easily explained as run-of-the-mill cockups, and a desire on the part of both Croatia and the USAF to cover their backsides when a VIP from the world's most powerful nation dies on their doorstep. Multiple things went wrong, but that's the nature of air disasters. Air disasters do not happen in this day and age unless multiple things go wrong.

My, you sure are desperate for this to go away. I wonder why ...

As for why I'm interested, well, you might have noticed this is a message board for skeptics.

But even you don't respond to every topic that comes up. Why did you chose to invest so much time in this one? I'm still waiting for an honest answer ...

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Of course, the pathologists I cited said nothing remotely similar to that. They said that IF the hole was caused by a bullet, it would either still be in the body (below the head) or it would have exited the body via an exit wound. If there was an exit wound, they know exactly why no exit wound was found ... Gormley didn't look for one. He initially lied about that.

Okay, we are nicely specific now. Sorry for not being able to find it amidst the reams of text you've posted, but can you direct us to the primary source that shows Gormley first lying about having looked for an exit wound, and then admitting that there very well might have been an exit wound he missed?

And the entry hole isn't just "funny looking". According to the pathologists, who are after all experts in this, it looks EXACTLY like a bullet would look, and NOT like what they'd expect a hole created by some part of the aircraft. And those metal fragments you dismiss look to the pathologists like a lead snowstorm ... an often found characteristic of bullet wounds. Also, although it was about a 0.45 inch hole, you are probably jumping the gun in concluding it was definitely made by a 45 caliber weapon. As one of the pathologists noted, a smaller caliber weapon could make a larger hole.

Unexpected things happen. It's up to the conspiracy believer to show that we should believe it was a .45 bullet on a rubber band or something, as opposed to an unusual but far from inconceivable injury received in a plane crash.

Except the pathologists don't agree with you. And Cogswell looked to see if anything at the crash site could have made that size hole. He found nothing that fit the ticket. But that didn't stop the AFIP management from claiming he did.

The fact he didn't see whatever did it at the crash scene is a very long way from being proof that it was a bullet.

My, you sure are desperate for this to go away. I wonder why ...

When you start rattling on about how everyone who questions you is "desperate", a "toe-tag democRAT" and so on it just makes you look like a kook with a persecution complex. It does nothing to make your arguments more persuasive.

But even you don't respond to every topic that comes up. Why did you chose to invest so much time in this one? I'm still waiting for an honest answer ...

Look, if it makes you a happy bunny feel free to assume that I'm a desperate toe-tag democRAT shill who smokes cigars with Starr and Clinton every Sunday in a secret UN bunker. I'll return the favour by assuming you're a paranoid kook who lashes out at people who threaten his sad, self-important delusions. Then we can both go back to talking about the hard evidence rather than slinging mud. Agreed?

 

[BeAChooser]

can you direct us to the primary source that shows Gormley first lying about having looked for an exit wound, and then admitting that there very well might have been an exit wound he missed?

Perhaps this would be a good test of your browsing skills?

But I'll help you out.

There are multiple sources that still support this claim.

http://www.aim.org/aim_report/A3624_0_4_0_C/ "Gormley claimed the hole in the head did not expose the brain and that there was no exit wound."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/05/email/brown/ "Spokesmen have told CNN that no bullet or bullet fragments were found in Brown's body and that there was nothing comparable to an exit wound. "Gormley confirmed there was no gunshot wound, and therefore concluded there was no need for further examination," the statement read."

http://www.dickgregory.com/dick/12_ronbrown5.html "Associated Press December 5, 1997 ... snip ... Gormley told the newspaper he discounted the gunshot possibility because the skull was not penetrated and there was no exit wound."

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/BROWN/bullet.html "Was Ron Brown Assassinated? Experts Differ on Ron Brown's Head Wound, By Christopher Ruddy ... snip ... Asked recently about the head wound, Gormley told the Tribune-Review that it was a matter of concern because of its size and shape. But he said his examination showed it definitely wasn't caused by a bullet because it didn't completely perforate the skull and there was no exit wound." ... snip ... Cogswell, after reviewing photos and X-rays, came to dispute Gormley's analysis. Cogswell contends brain matter was visible in the wound. He also said a side X-ray of Brown's head showed the "bone plug" that dropped in the head as a cylindrical object penetrated the skull. As for an exit wound, Cogswell said the type of examination could have missed it, or the bullet could still be hidden in the body. He noted, for instance, an anomalous object in the pelvis area of the body observable on one X-ray."

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38437 "Although forensic photographer Chief Petty Officer Kathleen Janoski had not yet said so publicly, she knew that head pathologist Col. William Gormley had never even looked for an exit wound."

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...it+wound+"ron+brown"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us "The Ron Brown Cover-up: Punishing the Whistleblowers, CBN News ... snip ... 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."

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/ois/cases/other/ronbrown/rbrown.htm "Chief Petty Officer Kathleen Janoski, the Chief of the Forensic Photography Division at OAFME and a twenty-two year veteran of the United States Navy ("USN"), was assigned to photograph Ron Brown's remains during Colonel Gormley examination. She has offered an affidavit of her observations of the examination of Secretary Brown conducted by Colonel Gormley and subsequent events. ... snip ... Chief Janoski also testifies that, based on her training and experience, Colonel Gormley did not conduct a thorough examination of Secretary Brown's remains for further evidence of a gunshot wound, as she had seen doctors do in other cases when visible evidence suggested such an injury. ... snip ... Colonel Gormley has offered inconsistent and changing explanations for his omissions. First, he stated that the wound in Secretary Brown's skull, which he examined after it was pointed out to him by Chief Janoski, was not a bullet wound because it did not penetrate the skull and because the brain was not visible. See Exhibit 15. He has subsequently admitted that a photograph of the wound, as well as photographs of Secretary Brown's X-rays, showed that the skull was penetrated and that Secretary Brown's brain was visible. Transcript of Television Interview with Colonel William Gormley, Black Entertainment Television, December 11, 1997, attached as Exhibit 18 at 18. He also has admitted that the hole in the crown of Ron Brown's head looked like an entrance wound from a gunshot, and that it was a "red flag" for a forensic pathologist which should have triggered a further inquiry. Exhibit 18 at 19. In fact, and even more damning, 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 in his head] look[ed] like a gunshot wound, at least an entrance gunshot wound."

But unfortunately, even the articles on the internet have a life. A lot of material has simply disappeared over time, or I'd post more.

One thing is for sure. Gormley lied about seeing only bone in the hole and seeing nothing suspicious in the x-rays. Even you can use your eyes to see that's false. So why would you be willing to believe his initial claim that he looked for an exit wound? Afterall, the person who was blew the whistle on Gormley lying about those other two things, and who was in a position to know whether he did a search for an exit wound, testified under oath that he did not do a search?

When you start rattling on about how everyone who questions you is "desperate", a "toe-tag democRAT" and so on it just makes you look like a kook with a persecution complex.

When you obfuscate, distort, mischaracterize, pretend ignorance, blatantly ignore facts and easy to understand logic, spin, and post illogical nonsense ... as you have on this thread, repeatedly ... it makes you look desperate and just like the toe-tag democRATS that in the past I've encountered trying to pull the same stunt when confronted with the Ron Brown evidence.

Quote:
But even you don't respond to every topic that comes up. Why did you chose to invest so much time in this one? I'm still waiting for an honest answer ...

Look, if it makes you a happy bunny feel free to assume that I'm a desperate toe-tag democRAT shill who smokes cigars with Starr and Clinton every Sunday in a secret UN bunker.

And you are still not even making an attempt to directly answer the question. Why did you decide to involve yourself with this thread and not others? You see, I (being an American) would have little interest in commenting on a thread related to some event or conspiracy in Australia. I wouldn't dream of taking sides in a situation like that given that I'd know absolutely nothing about it. Yet here you are ... obviously knowing nothing about this case ... immediately taking sides. So what gives?

 

[JimBenArm]

Yeah, what's the idea of a non-American having an opinion? The nerve!

 

[BeAChooser]

Yeah, what's the idea of a non-American having an opinion? The nerve!

I've no problem with non-Americans caring about something here in the US. But they should be able to express why they care, don't you think?

And if you know nothing about a particular case, should you interject yourself in the stream of discussion with a clear bias towards one view?

 

[JimBenArm]

I've no problem with non-Americans caring about something here in the US. But they should be able to express why they care, don't you think?

And if you know nothing about a particular case, should you interject yourself in the stream of discussion with a clear bias towards one view?

Why not? You did.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

BAC, it's not bias, it's an opinion based on the fact that you seem to be engaging in the kooky behaviour we associate with conspiracy theorists.

Checking your links, the relatively sane-looking stuff (from Judicial Watch, which has been credibly accused of being a right-wing front used to launch attacks on Clinton and later Kerry) avoids ever stating that Gormley failed to look for an exit wound. That claim only shows up on the more exitable Newsmax and WorldNetDaily pages, and those are the kind of places I expect from previous experience to hear all sorts of pro-Republican "facts" that turn out to be false.

My conclusion is that Gormley may well have quite reasonably not done an exhaustive check for exit wounds in unusual places, but there is no evidence whatsoever that he ignored or covered up an obvious exit wound. Similarly the x-rays are consistent with the entry wound of a bullet, but not consistent with a bullet that is not attached to a rubber band or something.

So while it's conceivable that Brown was shot, the only theory advanced for how this could have not been noticed seems to be that the bullet ricocheted around without leaving any evidence visible on an x-ray and ended up as an "anomalous" blob in his pelvis. That's pretty unlikely, and not something anyone can achieve reliably on purpose.

So it's sensible to discard the bullet hypothesis in favour of the much simpler explanation that he received the injury in the crash.

Once you've done that, what's the basis for believing evil Clintonians murdered a couple of dozen people to avoid a political embarassment? Not much that I can see, besides an emotional need to believe it.

 

[BeAChooser]

Why not? You did.

You only embarrass yourself since clearly I do know a lot about the Brown matter. In fact, I know a lot about any subject I post on. If you think you can prove otherwise, go ahead. Link us to the thread where you think I jumped in without knowing anything about the topic. If you don't, I guess we will know your comment was just a throw away line ... to avoid actually discussing the facts in this case.

 

[Darth Rotor]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90750 You are kidding, aren't you? Bush told everyone before he became President that he was going to "move on" with regards to all the allegations surrounding Clinton ... and that's just what he did.

Why don't you do the same.

Sorry, I just typed out a whole bunch of replies, and lost it.

In a nutshell. Provide the freqs of those two beacons.

Losing radio contact is not the same as losing radar contact, since one does not transmit all the time. Unless the radio transmission was cut off in mid transmission, you can't show a time of lost contact, you show a time of last contact.

Easy ways to lose transponder include knob error or an AC bus failure, or a circuit breaker popping. Depends.

The rest I am tired of, but will point out to you that AIB's have to examine the same evidence as the SIB, and have to come to conclusions as to causes so that blame, if warranted, can be assigned an punative action taken when deemed approprite. Reporting officials can ask for extensions, but must show cause to their reporting chain as to why a report will not meet the deadline. This is true in DoD and Navy guidance, I might ask beachnut, but I am pretty sure USAFI's offer the same provision.

You don't think these are extraordinary?

No. What I would find extraordinary is a finding by a forensic pathologist that "look, here is a bullet, here is evidence of a bullet, and here are the entry and exit wounds. This man has been shot." That would blow me away.

Your superman who walks away when Kelly is dying in her shattered body, and all others are dead, sells in Hollywood. Not IRL.

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

See again the report of the airport official.

The AIB is worthless if it contains lies, DR.

What lies did it contain? You are now slandering each officer who worked on that report.

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

No. AIB has to offer findings of fact and opinions of cause, and culpability. You are asserting a distinction that is not so.

If the interest was in being open, why did they not include the opinions of the pathologists and the original x-rays for Brown's head in the official report?

No idea, and I owe you no explanation for that. You make the extraordinary claim, you provide the extraordinary evidence.

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

Sorry, A political time bomb was Chinagate. No question, A political problem. Not in Fogleman's lane. Not his problem. His problem is the health of the Air Force.

But again, would be killers could not be guaranteed that would be the end result. People survive plane crashes all the time.

Not like that one. Kelly is dead.

Cogswel. ==snip== was he lying?

I doubt it. That does not prove murder. That does not show a CT.

The problem is that the transponder and voice contact were both lost at the same time. What would cause that, Mr *pilot*?

This has been explained, above. Typically, if in radio contact and transmitting, and transmission cut off when transponder contact is lost, then you have a crash. "Losing radio contact" is not a known condition if you aren't talking at the time, unless you are squawking 7700.

When a magazine like Aviation Week states that a beacon like that could have been used to spoof the plane in flying the course it flew into the mountain, the relevance is established.

Please provide the freqs. Your appeal to authority, an authority speculating, is noted.

Further relevance would be established by an exhumation and autopsy of Brown's body.

I agree. Are you trying to bring this about?

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

Yes. If I had a back up, portable beacon, I'd not want it on Dubrovnik freq. I'd want it selectable, or on another freq, since it is portable and I might want to use it elsewhere. I'd use it only when the Dubrovnik beacon was down, and I'd NOTAM the condition and the freq, since all USAF pilots check the NOTAMS before flights, since it is required to do so when filing DD-175 or DD-1801 for an ICAO flight plan. For flights such as this, flight plans are filed under DoD FLIP regulations. Check the FLIP GP if you like.

If Brown had testified about Chinagate and Campaign Finance illegalities, the Clintons and dozens of people connected to them would have been in serious legal trouble. That's motive.

A possible motive. Is that motive to kill the rest of them, or just Brown?

why don't you quote the relevant portions of the AIB report on this. I'm sure you can provide them.

No, beachnut is the Air Force guy, I'm the Navy guy, and I've done mishap investigations under DoD regs. You provide the relevant portions

SINCE YOU ARE MAKING THE EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS.

Got it?

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

We agree.

Yet, figuring out why is wasn't a normal approach is really just guesswork.

Nope.

But what we do know for certain is that multiple pathologists said the wound in Brown's head had the characteristics of a bullet wound and he should have been autopsied.

That does not prove murder. Nor a CT plot.

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

Pilot error is responsible for 70-80% of mishaps in military aviation. Navy Safety Center, Army Safety Center, USAF. Please feel free to look it up.

Gravity and Bernoulli don't care how many hours you have, one small error can kill you. My friend Paul Miller died in an SH-60B mishap. He had qualified as NATOPS officer and ANI (like this evaluator) but he died in a crash anyway. Being an evaluator does not protect your from pilot error.

Yeah, but these weren't students.

Agreed. Common errors are common errors.

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

You claim they showed so little interest. Can you prove that?

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

So Brown was shot and then put on the plane? Is that your theory? Or, did he embark with a parachute pack, and parachute out after he was sure the plane would crash, parachuting out into the clouds over mountains covered in clouds and fog?
What is your theory, BAC, that ties this all together?

But perhaps you have another reason for so desperately wanting this allegation to go away that you'd destroy your credibility as you have here.

My motivations are simple. I fight the war against stupid. CT's are stupidity inaction. I have a further motivation, which is when people slander the US Military, which you do when you make these assertions of fraud and cover up of the entire chain of people involved in this crash, dozens of honest, decent, people in uniform.

That is enough motivation for me to go into salty old cuss mode. It doesn't take much. You can ask Oliver, or any CT who posts on the CT forum who discusses AA flight 77.

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

That was not stated, now was it? You and your attempts to put words in others' mouths. You obviously didn't read the remarks made by the USAF officials about flying approaches on unapproved approach plates, did you?

The military said weather was NOT A SIGNIFICANT contributing factor. A subtle but important difference. Too subtle for you?

SInce I am the one who has explained this to you three times, and tried to hammer it into your head, you are either obtuse or being wilfully stupid.

They were blaming the crash on the weather even before the investigation had begun.

Yes, and they revised that estimate when more facts become known. That happens a lot. When you look at the final report, that is when the USAF spokesmen opined that it was not a significant contributing factor, for which reason I have explained to you: USAF flies in bad weather, and generally does just fine. Something else was the more significant cause.

SO, for the fourth time, I've been telling you this, will you please stop being an idiot?

That's not something they usually do.

Bullspit. It happens far too often, that some asshat starts to speculate before the reports are in. One should not, but it happens far too frequently in my experience.

The Air Force report never even considered the possibility of foul play

Proof of this statement?

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

Having not ignored this, you are yet again in error. What they said does not equal a bullet in Brown's head. It is an open question. We don't disagree that this is an open question.

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

I have covered this, and can only assume you choose to be willfully stupid.

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

And since you have never done such an investigation, your cherry picking of some words mean that you still don't know jack. My experience is true, as it made up the best part of my life. I have no reason to lie to you, or anyone else about it. You are the one who hides his experience, or lack of it, so I can only presume you are an internet AC. I hope I am wrong on that.

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

Intersting, and sad.

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

Yes, I would. If that is what it takes to end the stupid, absolutely. It might also provide some closure to other family members, the one's not quoted. So, you gonna start a petition?

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

Clueless. Absolutely clueless. See above the central issues: shooting not approved, and pilot error being the most consistent causal factor in military aviation mishaps for about the last two decades.

How do I know this? Easy. 4000 hours as Navy Pilot, and all that goes with it. Twenty five years of it.

Boy.

Now, you who are making the extraordinary claim, show up with the evidence I asked for. We can resume, or not, but since you have chosen to fight on the side of stupid, for reasons of your own, and have been both wilfully stupid regarding weather and causal factors, and have just insulted me again about defending Clinton, which I have not, and insulting my brotheren in the USAF, which I have not, do not expect other than contempt from me on this matter unless you retract that lie immediately. Disagreeing with you does not equal defending Clinton. Get that through your fat head.

Boy.

Now, I will confine my contempt for you and confine it to this matter. On all other matters I will be neutral to you, unless you show me other reason to do otherwise. No need to drag any shrapnel from this to another topic.

DR

 

[BeAChooser]

BAC, it's not bias, it's an opinion based on the fact that you seem to be engaging in the kooky behaviour we associate with conspiracy theorists.

Except I'm not doing that at all.

For example, what characteristics do we associate with 911 *Truthers*?

1) They ignore any fact that proves them wrong. But I've addressed every single point made by my opponents on this and the other threads concerning the Brown allegation. It has been YOUR side that has had to ignore factual points over and over.

2) They ignore or dismiss what real experts on the subject say. But I'm the one quoting the real experts in this case ... the pathologists. And they agree with me ... not you. It has been YOUR side that has been ignoring or dismissing out of hand what the real experts say.

3) They distort or lie about the facts and the statements of their opponents. But I've been very careful not to do that. It has been YOUR side in this debate that have employed those tactics.

4) They throw out red herrings and employ countless strawmen. Again, that's not a tactic I've used. That's a tactic YOUR side in this debate has employed.

So try again.

the relatively sane-looking stuff (from Judicial Watch, which has been credibly accused of being a right-wing front used to launch attacks on Clinton and later Kerry)

"credibly accused"? Cite your source. Must I point out that Klayman was just as tough on Bush and his administration once he took office and showed no interest in pursuing the truth? So it's difficult to believe your "right wing front" accusation. Did you just make that up on the spot?

I challenge you to point out anything that Judicial Watch stated about the Ron Brown case that isn't accurate. Smearing people (without backing up the smear) is a favorite liberal/democRAT tactic for discrediting information offered by someone. Clinton did it with both Monica and Paula Jones. Clinton's administration did it with Nolanda Hill. Are you trying to do it, too?

Let me remind you, since perhaps being an Australian you are not aware, that much of what we know about Filegate, Chinagate, Emailgate, etc we know thanks to Judicial Watch. Would you like to discuss any of those cases and point out where what they reported was in error? Let's start with Filegate. You game?

avoids ever stating that Gormley failed to look for an exit wound. That claim only shows up on the more exitable Newsmax and WorldNetDaily pages

Apparently, you can't read. Here's a QUOTE from the "sane-looking" Judicial Watch submittal: "Chief Janoski also testifies (BAC - that means "under oath") that, based on her training and experience, Colonel Gormley did not conduct a thorough examination of Secretary Brown's remains for further evidence of a gunshot wound, as she had seen doctors do in other cases when visible evidence suggested such an injury." What do you think they are talking about given the fact there are transcripts of multiple interviews with Janoski where she explicitly stated that Gormley did not look for an exit wound? (By the way, I heard one of those interview on live radio.) Do you have to have your hand held in every aspect of this case?

and those are the kind of places I expect from previous experience to hear all sorts of pro-Republican "facts" that turn out to be false.

Clearly you aren't biased. ROTFLOL!

My conclusion is that Gormley may well have quite reasonably not done an exhaustive check for exit wounds in unusual places, but there is no evidence whatsoever that he ignored or covered up an obvious exit wound.

That's not what the pathologists in the matter believe.

Tell us, Kevin, why do you simply ignore the FACT that Gormley clearly lied when he claimed there was just bone visible in the hole (i.e., no penetration into the brain) and that there was nothing unusual in the x-rays? You can prove both are false just by looking at the photos of the wound and the x-rays. You don't even have to be a pathologist to prove those are false. So why are you acting like a 911 Twoofer and ignoring any fact that hurts your position? Because then you might have to ask yourself why you believe Gormley's claim about looking for an exit wound is true when the two other claims he made about the same topic are demonstrable lies? Would the dissonance in that explode your head?

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Bush told everyone before he became President that he was going to "move on" with regards to all the allegations surrounding Clinton ... and that's just what he did.

Why don't you do the same.

You'd like that? But wouldn't that just be ignoring evidence of a potential mass murder?

In a nutshell. Provide the freqs of those two beacons.

Dig dig dig ...

The rest I am tired of,

No, the rest are points you must ignore because you have no logical or factual response to them. It's what 911 Twoofers do.

AIB's have to examine the same evidence as the SIB

Then why bother conducting SIBs? Why does the SIB turn over it's factual discoveries at the the start of the AIB? Doesn't that corrupt the AIB's investigation? Does the AIB check every one of the facts the SIB provides? And must I point out again that only the SIB lists "determining the cause" as a goal. The AIB is only charged with "expressing an opinion", based in part on the material it gets from the SIB, about the cause.

And why would the AIB in this case have forgotten to include the original x-rays in the report or mention the concerns expressed during the examination that Brown needed an autopsy? Did the AIB mention that the Whitehouse, JCS and Commerced were consulted about the wound and ordered there be no autopsy? Did the AIB mention that the first set of x-rays were no good? In fact, can you prove that they actually took a second set? Did they included ANY head x-ray in the AIB report? Because if they had, it would be difficult to explain why no one challenged Gormley's claim that there was just bone visible in the hole when the x-rays shows a displaced bone plug.

What I would find extraordinary is a finding by a forensic pathologist that "look, here is a bullet, here is evidence of a bullet, and here are the entry and exit wounds. This man has been shot."

But no competent pathologist will make such a statement without an autopsy. And the Whitehouse ordered there be no autopsy.

Quote:
The AIB is worthless if it contains lies, DR.

What lies did it contain?

Sorry, DR, but playing deaf, dumb and blind won't work. Mischaracterizing facts won't work. Ignoring them won't work. Lying about them won't work. Those tactics only show your desperation.

For the umpteenth time ... we know for a fact that the statement of Gormley in the AIB report that there was only bone visible in the hole and that there was nothing in the x-rays that was suspicious (he did put that in the report to explain why it was blunt force trauma, didn't he?) is a LIE. I posted the x-rays. Even a non-pathologist ... even a pilot ... can see those claims by Gormley are not true.

You are now slandering each officer who worked on that report.

I imagine hardly any of the officers who worked on that report knew the facts about the wound and x-rays, or the concerns that pathologists voiced at the examination of Brown's body.

The person who doesn't care about *officers* is the one who is content to let Janoski and Cogswell's reputation and career be ruined just because they did what was right and blew the whistle.

The person who doesn't care about the *officers* is the one who is content with letting the pilots of that plane take the blame even though they might not have been responsible at all.

The person who doesn't care about the military is the one willing to let it be corrupted and used by the Clinton administration ... as the Clinton administration did over and over.

So don't pull that tactic on me, DR. It's not going to work.

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

No. AIB has to offer findings of fact and opinions of cause, and culpability. You are asserting a distinction that is not so.

That's false. As I pointed out with sourced quotes, the distinction is there in black and white in official Air Force documents. You are just hiding from it along with many other facts in this case.

People survive plane crashes all the time.

Not like that one.

In the words of the investigators ... it was a relatively low speed crash. The rear section of the plane was intact. The bodies weren't shredded ... they were intact and spread around the site. Wecht, a RENOWNED pathologist, said except for the hole in Brown's head, his injuries appeared survivable. And people have survived much worse crashes than that one. A pilot should know this. What killed Kelly is the delay in getting to the site. A delay in part caused by what may have been deliberate misdirection by the Croatian government. And given that it took the first official rescuers over 4 hours to reach the site, and Kelly was still alive at that time, we don't know if others might also have been alive for a time after the crash and have been saved if proper medical care got there earlier. So dig dig dig ...

Please provide the freqs.

Obfuscate obfuscate obfuscate ...

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

Yes. If I had a back up, portable beacon, I'd not want it on tDubrovnik freq. I'd want it selectable

Ah ... so if it was selectable, could one of the selectable frequencies be that of the Dubrovnik airport?

I might want to use it elsewhere.

You might want to use it at Dubrovnik in which case it would make sense to use the same frequency.

I'd NOTAM the condition and the freq, since all USAF pilots check the NOTAMS beore flights, since it is required to do so when filing DD-175 or DD-1801 for an ICAO flight plan. For flights such as this, flight plans are filed under DoD FLIP regulations. Check the FLIP GP if you like.

Obfuscate obfuscate obfuscate ...

Is that motive to kill the rest of them, or just Brown?

None of the others were about to be indicted and turn state's evidence.

No, beachnut is the Air Force guy, I'm the Navy guy

Oh ... so you haven't seen the AIB report?

Yet, figuring out why is wasn't a normal approach is really just guesswork.

Nope.

Sure it is. No one survived who was on that plane. They didn't get to interview any of them. There were no reports from the plane of problems. The Air Force was so uncertain that they had to attribute the cause to three different things. And even then, they just dismissed oddities such as that sudden change in flight path I mentioned and the loss of contact with the plane.

Quote:
But what we do know for certain is that multiple pathologists said the wound in Brown's head had the characteristics of a bullet wound and he should have been autopsied.

That does not prove murder. Nor a CT plot.

True but any reasonable person would be suspicious when these highly qualified and well regarded (before they blew the whistle) military officers made these allegations and instead of the matter being properly investigated, the response of the government was to threaten and punish the officers, and lie to the public.

Pilot error is responsible for 70-80% of mishaps in military aviation.

Is pilot error usually the cause when the best pilots (such as these were) are flying?

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

You claim they showed so little interest. Can you prove that?

Well the General wasn't able to explain it when asked. He just waved his hands. And I've seen no explanation offered anywhere else but a lot of questions asked about it.

So Brown was shot and then put on the plane? Is that your theory?

Again, you continue to misrepresent the scenario I've clearly described several times now. Everyone out there can see what you are trying to do. Obfuscate obfuscate obfuscate ...

parachuting out into the clouds over mountains covered in clouds and fog?

The plane wasn't over mountains over much of the flight. Nor was most of the flight path over terrain that was in clouds and fog at ground level. Why mischaracterize these facts, DR?

What is your theory, BAC, that ties this all together?

I've clearly expressed my theory on several threads now where you have participated. Are you having trouble paying attention? You might want to check out post #32, if you are.

My motivations are simple. I fight the war against stupid. CT's are stupidity inaction.

Not all conspiracy theories, as this one proves. Would you like to discuss Filegate, DR? That's another conspiracy that actually took place.

I have a further motivation, which is when people slander the US Military,

You are the one slandering the US military here, DR. You slander the pathologists and photographer. You slander the pilots. You slander any military officer who would like no doubt that Brown didn't have a bullet in his body when he was examined.

which you do when you make these assertions of fraud and cover up of the entire chain of people involved in this crash,

That's completely false. As has been pointed out before, only a few people actually have to be in the know for this to have happened. Everyone else just says "yes sir" and most know nothing about what happened at Dover. They just do what you did and believe an AIB report that contains demonstrable LIES.

honest, decent, people in uniform

You appear to be claiming that Cogswell, Janoski, Hause, Parsons were not honest, decent, people in uniform. Is that why you are content that they were threatened and punished? Is that why you are ok with the fact that the careers of some of them were ruined? Who has done more damage to the military here, DR? Those officers or Gormley and Dickerson who clearly lied about the facts in official documents and in public statements?

Quote:
They were blaming the crash on the weather even before the investigation had begun.

Yes, fool,

Is it standard military procedure for the generals to announce the reason for a crash before the investigation has even begun? Don't they usually say "no comment" until they get more information?

When you look at the final report, that is when the USAF opined that it was not a significant contributing factor

Yet they paid out 14 million to the families of the victims (at least the civilian ones) with the excuse the crash was due to weather. Go figure ...

The Air Force report never even considered the possibility of foul play ...

Proof of this statement?

Well given that nothing in the Air Force briefing at the end of the investigation would suggest they did, I think you are the one making the exceptional claim here. So you prove it. Give us a quote from the AIB suggesting they considered foul play. Just one quote.

Quote:
even with military pathologists talking about bullet wounds at the examination of his body and calling for an autopsy.

Proof of this statement?

See the quotes by the pathologists. Weren't you paying attention?

Boy.

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

We can resume, or not, but since you have chosen to fight on the side of stupid, for reasons of your own, and have been both wilfully stupid regarding weather and causal factors, and just insulted me

Oh the irony. ROTFLOL!

Disagreeing with you does not equal defending Clinton.

Actually, in this case it clearly does since it was the Clinton administration that ordered Gormley not to autopsy Brown even after concern was clearly voiced about the wound.

Boy.

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

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

"credibly accused"? Cite your source. Must I point out that Klayman was just as tough on Bush and his administration once he took office and showed no interest in pursuing the truth? So it's difficult to believe your "right wing front" accusation. Did you just make that up on the spot?

Well, their money comes from right-wing loonies like Scaife, they were used as attack dogs against both Clinton (defensible) and Kerry (no way that isn't partisan hackery), they condemned the death of Terry Schiavo as murder and subpoenad footage of the 9/11 Pentagon attack looking for evidence of conspiracies. I'm not criticising everything they've ever done, but they are clearly partisan, kooky, and unafraid to pursue ideas which are false or silly for political ends.

They bill themselves as conservative (which is accurate) and non-partisan, which seems to be true only insofar as they are partisans for their own loonie agenda which is not quite the same as the loonie agenda of the Repubican party in every case.

I challenge you to point out anything that Judicial Watch stated about the Ron Brown case that isn't accurate. Smearing people (without backing up the smear) is a favorite liberal/democRAT tactic for discrediting information offered by someone. Clinton did it with both Monica and Paula Jones. Clinton's administration did it with Nolanda Hill. Are you trying to do it, too?

I already did, you're about to quote it again for me.

Apparently, you can't read. Here's a QUOTE from the "sane-looking" Judicial Watch submittal: "Chief Janoski also testifies (BAC - that means "under oath") that, based on her training and experience, Colonel Gormley did not conduct a thorough examination of Secretary Brown's remains for further evidence of a gunshot wound, as she had seen doctors do in other cases when visible evidence suggested such an injury." What do you think they are talking about given the fact there are transcripts of multiple interviews with Janoski where she explicitly stated that Gormley did not look for an exit wound? (By the way, I heard one of those interview on live radio.) Do you have to have your hand held in every aspect of this case?

Apparently you can't read, or can't smell spin when it's spin you like.

"He did not conduct a thorough examination of Secretary Brown's remains for further evidence of a gunshot wound" does not mean "he made no examination that would have found an obvious gunshot wound if one existed". It means he made no special search for a non-obvious exit wound as one might in a case where shooting was actually a remotely plausible hypothesis.

The Swift Boat affair showed that it's easy to find ex-armed forces people willing to lie to stick it to a political figure they don't like. The mere fact one ex-armed forces photographer is trying to spin things to paint Gormley as incompetent does not impress me in the absence of any hard evidence.

It's also a red flag that her comments get exaggerated in the crazy web sites and in your posts to "Gormley never even looked for an exit wound!". If people are that desperate (you like that word?) to find incriminating evidence then it reveals a lot about their motives and calls into doubt everything else they are presenting as fact.

Tell us, Kevin, why do you simply ignore the FACT that Gormley clearly lied when he claimed there was just bone visible in the hole (i.e., no penetration into the brain) and that there was nothing unusual in the x-rays? You can prove both are false just by looking at the photos of the wound and the x-rays. You don't even have to be a pathologist to prove those are false. So why are you acting like a 911 Twoofer and ignoring any fact that hurts your position? Because then you might have to ask yourself why you believe Gormley's claim about looking for an exit wound is true when the two other claims he made about the same topic are demonstrable lies? Would the dissonance in that explode your head?

I'm ignoring it because despite that, there is still not enough evidence to make a sane person think that the gunshot theory holds water.

You have nothing that is inconsistent with an embarassing plane crash, confused initial media reports, and a frenzy of subsequent backside-covering by the USAF and Croatia.

 

[Disenchanted]

Wecht, a RENOWNED pathologist, said except for the hole in Brown's head, his injuries appeared survivable. And people have survived much worse crashes than that one.

I have been lurking and I saw this statement and decided to respond.

Wecht is a media shill, not to mention corrupt and a politician.

He sticks his nose in high profile cases for publicity and money such as the Ramsey case.

Plus he is also largely responsible for JFK conspiracy theories.

He even testified before a House Select Committee in 1978 that he disputed that there was a second gunman.

"In fact, he believed that Kennedy was struck twice in a synchronized fashion, from the rear and the right front side. In years to come, he supported writers and researchers who believed there had been a cover-up.

By 1991, Dr. Wecht's reputation was such that Oliver Stone invited him to consult on the medical evidence for his conspiracy-heavy film, JFK."

crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/cyril_wecht/index.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Wecht

So I would not put much credence in anything he comes up with for conspiracy regarding Brown. His claim that Brown's injuries were survivable maybe just as credible as his claim that synchronized bullets hit Kennedy.

He has also been charged with 84 counts in a corruption case that is to begin in January.

post-gazette.com/pg/07226/809362-100.stm