If we can't trust National Geographics And Discovery Channel ... what can we trust?

[BeAChooser]

Joe: beachnut already kicked BAC's arse on this over at CT a while back.

You are delusional, DR. I took beachnut apart on earlier threads ... so badly that here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119618 , he's now stammering. Just repeating the same plagerized message over and over, and claiming to be a "friend" of the pilot.

All beachnut (and YOU) ever did was regurgitate the "official story" ... which I showed in this thread is incomplete AT BEST. An official story that leaves out a host of very important and quite incriminating facts. Lies by omission, if nothing else.

I stopped responding to him on that, after a conversation a few weeks into that topic with an Air Force major, now retired, who was on the mishap board and at the site. It was weird.

No, DR, you stopped responding when you found you couldn't debate the facts any better than beachnut. And then you, like him, started claiming inside knowledge and sources ... none of which you can prove. And yes that is weird.

I'd been banging my head against the wall with BAC on this, and had lunch with G, and mentioned the topic. After about fifteen minutes, I decided BAC's game wasn't worth playing.

Why don't you tell us what he told you, DR? I bet I can point out a number of omissions that would qualify as lies, if not outright lies. Go ahead ... wow us with "G"'s knowledge and impartiality.

It's an exercise in JAQing off to talk Ron Browne with BAC.

It's not "Browne", DR. Surely "G" told you that.

 

[JoeEllison]

Joe: beachnut already kicked BAC's arse on this over at CT a while back. I stopped responding to him on that, after a conversation a few weeks into that topic with an Air Force major, now retired, who was on the mishap board and at the site. It was weird. I'd been banging my head against the wall with BAC on this, and had lunch with G, and mentioned the topic. After about fifteen minutes, I decided BAC's game wasn't worth playing.

It's an exercise in JAQing off to talk Ron Browne with BAC.

DR

Seems about right. It isn't even based on facts: it is based on an insane(in the literal sense) hatred of Bill Clinton. The "reasoning" apparently rests on the belief that Bill Clinton is one step below Satan, so any negative claim about Clinton must be true no matter how illogical or unlikely. By the same token, the massive amount of evidence that vindicates Clinton and shows conclusively that most of the attacks on him were completely unfounded serves only as massive amounts of "evidence" that there is a gigantic conspiracy to protect Clinton. There is no evidence that will ever satisfy BAC or any other conspiracy nut, because all evidence is distorted by the filter of their underlying delusional worldview. Without that worldview, the whole conspiracy falls apart as obviously nonsensical.

 

[Gurdur]

Foster / Brown Fever Index (FBFI): count the number of 's in a post mentioning how the punk group Obama & The democRATS * murdered Foster / Brown, and did in JFK too, as well as killing off the crew of the Marie Celeste just for fun; if >2, the poster is in a febrile state, in danger of total meltdown and requiring urgent professional assistance; if =2, keep under observation.

____________

* Don't blame me for that one, blame him.

 

[slingblade]

No, you don't care one way or the other. Remember?

I don't care about Ron Brown. That doesn't mean you can apply that to every topic known to man.

Public policy. The sanctity of our election system. The sanctity of our legal system.

Don't believe in those last two. They aren't holy; they're riddled with corruption and greed. They don't care about me, and never will.

Well if you can't trust the President, Air Force, Department of Justice, and FBI to properly investigate a potential crime ...

I don't trust them. I've no reason to. What good would trusting them do me, anyway?

Motivate public opinion so that the body is exhumed and autopsied.

Will this improve my life in an immediate, personal, and observable way?

 

[Dancing David]

Those defending the Clinton administration need to deal with the actual facts.

Unlike those who defend the GWB administration who need to deal with breaking the law, willfull deception and outright lying.

keep spinning Karl JR.

 

[Dancing David]

" ... which I showed in this thread is incomplete AT BEST.

Incomplete at best?

Sounds like most of your Plasma Cosmology malarkey.

Still playing god of the gaps are you.

GWB willfully broke the law, I am sure you have seen all the post dated pardons while you are hiding in Cheney's safe.

 

[Don At Work]

Nice strawman. It would settle it for me, as I've already stated on numerous occasions. The only requirement I'd have is that the pathologists be selected from people outside the government and that some of the whistleblowers, like Janoski and Cogswell, be in attendance at the autopsy and have access to all data. If Cogswell, etc were satisfied with the result, I'd be satisfied. That's not an unreasonable position.

Bolding mine.

I disagree. It is unreasonable that YOUR fellow CTs get to be the final arbiters of the validity of the autopsy. If the coroner is a disinterested 3rd party, neither a CT nor an "Insider" need be consulted. You can take the coroner's word for it. Heck, get 2 or 3 that have no vested interest and see what they come up with. You simply don't NEED your insiders there, nor does the other side.

What tale? All I've done here is note some facts that weren't included in the NG and DC documentaries. Facts that I think should have been included. Such as the fact that they lost communication with the plane when it was still 7-8 miles out from the airport.

Bolding mine.

What "facts"? If they are facts, then you need to CITE your source. Telling someone to "look it up" is not how you present your case. If I can't find it, then it must not exist, right? No, not true. However, it is true until you SHOW ME. Here is a nice fact. Ron Brown was in on a HUGE conspiracy to overthrow the government. That is why he was killed. ITS A FACT. Look it up.

See how that works?

Show us some of your "facts", with CITES. Yea, your cites will probably be torn to shreds for being from conspiracy sites that have no validity, but it's a start.

 

[BeAChooser]

Unlike those who defend the GWB administration who need to deal with breaking the law, willfull deception and outright lying.

There's a important difference here, David.

I have argued against the specifics presented to claim GWB has committed those actions, where I've thought he hasn't. I've done that by presenting specific facts (with links to sources) to challenge those claims. I've done that on numerous threads and occasions. And you know this is true.

In the Brown (and Foster) case, the other side will NOT argue the specific facts presented to indicate foul play. They just ignore them.

See the difference?

 

[BeAChooser]

GWB willfully broke the law, I am sure you have seen all the post dated pardons while you are hiding in Cheney's safe.

I see you are having trouble debating the facts in the Brown case, too.

 

[BeAChooser]

It is unreasonable that YOUR fellow CTs get to be the final arbiters of the validity of the autopsy.

You call individuals who were highly regarded military officers at the time of the event and who were considered some of the best forensic pathologists in the country "CTs"?

If the coroner is a disinterested 3rd party, neither a CT nor an "Insider" need be consulted.

And how are you going to pick this disinterested party at this point in time? Tell us your procedure. And name some names so you can prove to me that they truly are disinterested and would not be affected by government pressure. Given the government tampering that is evident in the Brown and Foster cases, pardon me for being a little suspicious. That's why I want the original whistleblowers (who appear to have been completely honest and were never proven wrong in anything they claimed as fact) at the autopsy. That's why I want them to have access to any x-rays or data that is taken. If for no other reason than to confirm that there is no tampering with the evidence. If they can confirm that, with assurances that the 3rd parties indeed have no vested interest and are willing to rock the boat if that's what the evidence shows, then let's go for it. I have no objections.

What "facts"? If they are facts, then you need to CITE your source. Telling someone to "look it up" is not how you present your case.

Don, you are stepping into the middle of a long conversation that has spanned numerous threads. Being so new to the forum, you might be advised to look at some previous threads on this subject before putting your foot into it.

If you would even visit the thread I linked earlier (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119618 ), you would find plenty of specific, credible sources to back up what I'm saying. I'm not going to spoon feed you here, since this thread isn't even about the Ron Brown conspiracy but just the fact that the NG and DC documentaries have clearly omitted important details.

If I can't find it, then it must not exist, right? No, not true. However, it is true until you SHOW ME. Here is a nice fact. Ron Brown was in on a HUGE conspiracy to overthrow the government. That is why he was killed. ITS A FACT. Look it up.

Again, if you won't even read a thread where all those sources you demand have already been posted (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119618 ), I'm wasting my time with you. Am I?

Since you obviously didn't bother to even read THIS thread and find the link to where the Ron Brown matter has been discussed previously, I'll spoon feed you this one last time. Here's the thread you should visit:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119618

If you have comments or complaints about the contents or validity of the sources I offer there and on the threads that preceded it (which are linked on that thread), make them there. You can be sure I will respond.

Yea, your cites will probably be torn to shreds for being from conspiracy sites that have no validity, but it's a start.

Well, I've linked the thread with the cites. Try your best.

 

[JoeEllison]

Incomplete at best?

Sounds like most of your Plasma Cosmology malarkey.

Still playing god of the gaps are you.

GWB willfully broke the law, I am sure you have seen all the post dated pardons while you are hiding in Cheney's safe.

"Plasma Cosmology"?!?! BAC doesn't even live in the same dimension as the rest of us, does he?

 

[Don At Work]

If for no other reason than to confirm that there is no tampering with the evidence. If they can confirm that, with assurances that the 3rd parties indeed have no vested interest and are willing to rock the boat if that's what the evidence shows, then let's go for it. I have no objections.

Good, neither do I.

Don, you are stepping into the middle of a long conversation that has spanned numerous threads. Being so new to the forum, you might be advised to look at some previous threads on this subject before putting your foot into it.

I actually did read through all of the other threads a while ago, but went back and looked again.(not a busy day at work.)

You give yourself WAY too much credit. I may "new to the forum" in your eyes, since I registered as of late, but I have read these forums for a few years now. This would be another example of how you "state fact". I thought that you were taken apart on the other threads. You obviously think different.

If you would even visit the thread I linked earlier (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119618 ), you would find plenty of specific, credible sources to back up what I'm saying. I'm not going to spoon feed you here, since this thread isn't even about the Ron Brown conspiracy but just the fact that the NG and DC documentaries have clearly omitted important details.

Spoon feed me? Try and be condescending some more, its cute. You are dishonest at best, and a deluded egomaniac at worst. Kevin_Lowe has already put your "argument" to rest.

Important details to you. Facts to you. I am quite sure that NG and DC have good lawyers, and "omitt important details" that could get them sued.

Again, if you won't even read a thread where all those sources you demand have already been posted (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119618 ), I'm wasting my time with you. Am I?

Since you obviously didn't bother to even read THIS thread and find the link to where the Ron Brown matter has been discussed previously, I'll spoon feed you this one last time. Here's the thread you should visit:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119618

If you have comments or complaints about the contents or validity of the sources I offer there and on the threads that preceded it (which are linked on that thread), make them there. You can be sure I will respond.

Again, you assume too much. I read them all. You made just about as much sense on those threads. And again, your tone makes you seem to be full of yourself. Perhaps you should apply for the MDC since you know that I have not read the other threads, nor this one. (here is a nice smiley for you)

Well, I've linked the thread with the cites. Try your best.

I don't have to try anything. You were soundly refuted on the other threads. Here is a suggestion. How about you try YOUR best? (did I get the condescending tone right?)

 

[Dancing David]

There's a important difference here, David.

I have argued against the specifics presented to claim GWB has committed those actions, where I've thought he hasn't. I've done that by presenting specific facts (with links to sources) to challenge those claims. I've done that on numerous threads and occasions. And you know this is true.

In the Brown (and Foster) case, the other side will NOT argue the specific facts presented to indicate foul play. They just ignore them.

See the difference?

I doubt it!



Your facts are made in a factory.

 

[Dancing David]

If you have comments or complaints about the contents or validity of the sources I offer there and on the threads that preceded it (which are linked on that thread), make them there. You can be sure I will respond.



Well, I've linked the thread with the cites. Try your best.

Yeah right BAC, you are such a tease, there are still pages of stuff you have never responded to, much less the outright contradictions and messes you made.

"The momentum of galaxies is imparted at thier formation thus explaining the flat rotation curves".

 

[Dancing David]

"Plasma Cosmology"?!?! BAC doesn't even live in the same dimension as the rest of us, does he?

he lives in D. Cheney's man sized safe.

 

[JoeEllison]

he lives in D. Cheney's man sized safe.

In an undisclosed location, near where Jimmy Hoffa is buried, and guarded by the second gunman from the grassy knoll?

 

[Dancing David]

And the anthrax spore from the glassy beaker.

 

[PaKu]

Is this the same Discovery Channel that's always showing programs that promote UFOs, ghosts, bigfoot, and Nessie?

Steve S.

it's rather irritating that you can't refer to a good documentary, e.g. crop circles, as one of the arguments in a discussion without being shot down by that comment which is, unfortunatly, true..

 

[BeAChooser]

I actually did read through all of the other threads a while ago

Then why did you claim I had not provided sources?

I may "new to the forum" in your eyes, since I registered as of late, but I have read these forums for a few years now.

Then you should have known I provided sources for everything I claimed. And why did you act like you hadn't read anything else?

You are dishonest at best, and a deluded egomaniac at worst. Kevin_Lowe has already put your "argument" to rest.

Oh he did, did he? Exactly how did he do that, Don? What argument of his convinced you? Or do you need to remain vague ... LIKE HE DID? Because all he did is point vaguely to others and claim *they* dismantled my arguments.

Here's the post in that thread I pointed you to where I responded to Kevin's *vague* claim in that thread:

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe
There's already a very lengthy thread on Ron Brown, where your conspiracy theories were thoroughly dismantled by people much more knowledgeable than yourself about military aviation and crash responses.

Actually, Kevin, those threads show that those you claim dismantled the allegations actually knew very little about Air Force regulations or the facts in the Brown case. In them, they basically just regurgitated (or should I say chanted) the "official" position from an Air Force report that curiously failed to even mention that pathologists in the case had noted the wound's bullet like appearance and called for an autopsy at the time (which didn't happen on orders from the Whitehouse and JCS, by the way). That report also neglected to mention a number of other significant incriminating facts which I listed and sourced in those threads. None of which your debunkers ever addressed. They just ignored them (like you are now trying to do, Kevin). Or they wanted to pretend like *they* were experts in forensic pathology or aircraft crashes. Which I demonstrated wasn't true. For those who'd like to confirm this, here are the threads that Kevin refers to ... but for some reason () fails to actually link you to:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87011 The first thread I discussed this topic on the forum. Will all the behaviors I noted above.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90750 This one is especially good. In it, I even debate Kevin directly. You can watch Kevin (as I noted in this thread) "obfuscate, distort, mischaracterize, pretend ignorance, blatantly ignore facts and easy to understand logic, spin, and post illogical nonsense" and hope this allegation goes away. So do many of the other *debunkers*. It's good reading and very illuminating regarding Kevin, who claims to be a disinterested Australian but keeps jumping in to defend Clinton whenever he's mentioned. Like now.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87840&page=3 Here, the death of Brown was debated along with some other scandals ... like Filegate. And surprise, surprise, some of the same people show up to defend the Clintons against those allegations too.

I maintain, Kevin, that those who bother to read the above threads will conclude your description of their content is nothing short of dishonest. I wonder why that dishonesty was necessary?

Let's look closer at that thread where Kevin actually did try to debate me directly: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90750 . Maybe that's where you think Kevin put my arguments to rest. Here (post #13) was his major theme:

The least implausible version of BAC's implicit TC that I can tease out is that Evil Conspirators (1) sabotaged the plane's communications gear, (2) lured it into crashing with a false beacon, and then (3) ran up to Brown as he staggered out of the wreckage and killed him with an exotic weapon they had brought along that made suspicious-looking wounds.

The first two steps are far-fetched but not impossible, but what's with the third? Why is our hypothetical assassin rushing to the crash site to polish off survivors armed with a wacky weapon that is tailor-made to arouse suspicion?

Instead of addressing the facts (such as the statements of the whisteblowers and what the x-ray shows), he insisted I must supply a scenario of how it happened. The fallacy of doing that aside, my response was #26 where I think I adequately addressed his concerns and provided a plausible scenario. Would you like to point out what portion of my response you don't agree with, Don? You can do it on that thread if you like. Or are you going to run?

By the way, Don, in that thread Kevin foolishly continued beyond post #26 and in doing so ended up badly embarrassing himself. His adhominems were not a substitute for actually dealing with the facts. Nor were his obfuscations. Nor were his misrepresentations of the facts. Nor were his misrepresentations of my statements. And since he covered so much ground, I'm going to ask you to point out specifically which of his points carried the day for you? Or are you going to run?

And by the way, are you Australian too?

 

[Dancing David]

By the way, BAC, in that thread you foolishly continued beyond posting and in doing so ended up badly embarrassing yourself. Your adhominems were not a substitute for actually dealing with the facts. Nor were your obfuscations. Nor were your misrepresentations of the facts. Nor were your misrepresentations of other's statements. And since you covered so much ground, I'm going to ask you to point out specifically which of his points you ever really substantiated? Or are you going to run?

that is what you usually do!