• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Ron Brown's head wound

gdnp said:
What I have done is exactly what I said I would do: Evaluate a piece of evidence in a field in which I hold expertise.
Click to expand...

No, you admitted above that you do NOT have expertise in bone trauma or gunshots. Do you even have expertise in plane crashes? You see, the forensic pathologists I quoted (like Cogswell, Hause and Wecht) had substantial expertise in all three. Which means I find your dismissal of their concerns based on your *expertise* less than conclusive. :D

gdnp said:
You will notice that there are many threads that I do not participate in here. 9/11 conspiracy theories are a prominent example. I have not not found the subject matter of sufficient interest. The same goes for Ron Brown.
Click to expand...

What you are attempting, now, is just another standard (and frankly dishonest) tactic of those (mostly democrats and Clinton supporters) who try to dismiss the Ron Brown matter out of hand after finding they can't actually debunk it with the facts. You now want folks to link in their minds the (we both agree) silly 9/11 conspiracy theories to the Ron Brown allegations. By doing this, you are trying to suggest that the Ron Brown allegation has no more credibility than 9/11 conspiracy theories. But that's a red herring. It's just as much a red herring as the mainstream medias attempts years ago to link the Ron Brown allegation to UFO conspiracy theories (yes, they even did that rather than just report the facts!).

The irony is that it is YOU and the other naysayers who are acting like 9/11 conspiracy theorists in this instance. What do 9/11 conspiracy theorists do?

First, they simply ignore any fact that proves them wrong. But I've tried to address every single point made by my opponents on this and the other threads concerning the Brown allegations. It has been YOUR side that has had to ignore factual or logical points time and again.

Second, they ignore or dismiss what the real experts on the subject say and believe. Like you are now doing. I'm the one quoting the real experts in this case. 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.

Third, 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 has employed those tactics.

And fourth, they throw out red herrings and employ countless strawmen. Again, like you are doing. That's not a tactic I've used. That's a tactic YOUR side in this debate has employed.

gdnp said:
Even if I accepted that Clinton had Ron Brown killed, Clinton is no longer the president, and hasn't been for 8 years. I am more interested in recapitalizing the banks.
Click to expand...

I might agree that this is less urgent than dealing with current problems IF a Clinton and so many other former members of the Clinton administration where not NOW important members of Obama's administration. But the fact is a Clinton and many members of their administration are part of Obama's "Team of Rivals". If Brown and 30+ others were murdered (and that could be determined with a simple exhumation and autopsy), many of those people may have had a hand in either the murder or covering it up. In which case, wouldn't you agree that they should not be part of Obama's administration? Or would you not care? Careful, your answer may say a lot about you. :D
 
Big Les said:
I'd be interested to see how the Fackler quote came about - he is pretty much the go-to guy on wound ballistics, so if the quote is accurate and in the correct context, it does seem that there's a discrepancy.
Click to expand...

I have no reason to believe the views and quotes attributed to Fackler are inaccurate. They were reported by Christopher Ruddy in articles he wrote on the Ron Brown topic (e.g., http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/BROWN/bullet.html ) , not one of which has been proven factually wrong. Those same articles quoted others (like Janoski and Cogswell) whose views and quotes are independently verifiable (for example, if you look around you can even find a few radio and TV interviews where they say what Ruddy reported they said about the Brown matter).

And you are right, Dr Martin Fackler was a renowned expert in this area. So if he thought there should have been an autopsy, there should have been an autopsy. In fact, there should have been one by law, since the law stated that in the death of a Secretary of Anything in the US government, ANY suspicion of foul play merits an autopsy. And we have AFIP pathologists stating they called for one during the examination and it wasn't done because the Whitehouse and JCS would not allow one.

You are also right that Fackler's statement doesn't in itself prove anything other than that, perhaps, an autopsy should have been performed. The ONLY way to prove anything is to exhume Brown's body and perform an autopsy in the presence of expert witnesses we can trust. Which is what I suggest be done now. It's not too late given modern forensic science to determine if Brown was shot. If they find nothing to indicate a bullet, then we can all let this matter rest. But it will never rest if they don't.

As for picking at holes, there isn't just one hole in the official story but dozens and dozens. Because it isn't just Fackler but half a dozen pathologists with clear expertise raising the red flag. It's missing photos and x-rays, and clear lies by some of the hierarchy at AFIP and in the Air Force concerning the evidence and the opinions of AFIP's staff. It's the way the whistleblowing professionals were treated and the curious manner in which their concerns were not investigated. It's also not just a suspicious bullet wound, but a host of suspicious facts. A missing beacon that Aviation Week reported could have been used to spoof a plane into the hitting a mountain as this one did. The sudden and suspicious death of the airport employee who was in charge of that beacon. The fact that the Air Force skipped the portion of the normal crash investigation process responsible for finding the cause ... for only the second time in its history (the first was a clear cut case of friendly fire). The fact that the plane lost contact with the ground well before the impact. The fact that sworn testimony has Brown telling the Whitehouse only weeks before the crash that he was going to turn state's evidence in matters related to ChinaGate and CampaignFinanceGate. And so on and so on ...
 
Spindrift said:
And you talk about events that weren't crimes, but are just inane conspiracy theories like Ron Brown being murdered.
Click to expand...

Funny. Just for the record, readers, here's how Spindrift approached the Ron Brown allegations, and what I noted about his approach (highlights added by me):

Spindrift said:
Originally Posted by BeAChooser
So how many of you so-called *skeptics* want to go on record stating that the quoted statements of the forensic pathologists and photographer that I cited above are fraudulent? Hmmmmm?

I will. Feel better? Really don't know if they are fraudulent or not. Don't really care either. Ron Brown died in a plane crash. He wasn't shot in the head.
Click to expand...

LOL! So you admit you don't know or care whether the quotes offered by half a dozen different media sources based on claimed interviews with named military officers who were directly involved in the Ron Brown case … officers who said the wound x-rays suggested a bullet wound and Brown should have been autopsied as a result … are real or not. Because your mind is made up.

As far as you are concerned, Brown died in a plane crash and he wasn't shot in the head, regardless of what almost all the REAL forensic experts in the Brown case concluded. Spindrift, you sound like a 9/11 Truther. Given the above statement by you, NOTHING I could ever offer in the way of evidence would change your mind. You are the perfect example of the sort of person resulting from the sort of news coverage provided by the Washington Post. *You see nothing. You hear nothing. You know nothing.* That's fine with you. And it's fine with them.
Click to expand...
See what I mean? Spindrift can't see the forest through the trees AND won't even take the trouble to look. :rolleyes:

And he treats the rest of the allegations against the Clinton administration the same way. Is that really what *skeptic* means around here? :D

Posted By: Gaspode
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BeAChooser said:
Funny. Just for the record, readers, here's how Spindrift approached the Ron Brown allegations, and what I noted about his approach (highlights added by me):



See what I mean? Spindrift can't see the forest through the trees AND won't even take the trouble to look. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
:D How I and most of the sane world approaches it. Ron Brown died in a plane crash. He was not shot in the head. :D

BeAChooser said:
And he treats the rest of the allegations against the Clinton administration the same way. Is that really what *skeptic* means around here? :D
Click to expand...
:D Allegations? I'm very skeptical of the allegations. :D
 
BeAChooser said:
Funny. Just for the record, readers, here's how Spindrift approached the Ron Brown allegations, and what I noted about his approach (highlights added by me):



See what I mean? Spindrift can't see the forest through the trees AND won't even take the trouble to look. :rolleyes:

And he treats the rest of the allegations against the Clinton administration the same way. Is that really what *skeptic* means around here? :D
Click to expand...


OK, I'll ask. If Ron Brown was killed by a bullet to the head how was it done?

1) He was shot and his corpse was loaded on the plan and strapped into a seat.
2) He was shot on the plane and the assassin escaped by parachute.
3) He was shot on the plane and the assassin died in the crash.
4) He survived the crash and was shot by the assassin who arrived at the crash scene before anyone else.
5) He was shot and never was on the plane but his body was placed in the wreckage.
6) He was shot and not only was he never on the plane, he was never in the wreckage.
7) Something else


Followup questions. Did the conspirators cause the plane to crash? If so, was their intent to hide one murder by committing 34 other murders?

.........................
I hope this post isn't pulled from the thread. I am directly responding to a point raised by the person who started the thread.
 
Spindrift said:
How I and most of the sane world approaches it. Ron Brown died in a plane crash. He was not shot in the head.
Click to expand...

Like I said. You are like a 9/11 Truther. You don't want to debate the actual facts. You simply go on repeating what you *believe* regardless of facts.
 
BeAChooser said:
Like I said. You are like a 9/11 Truther. You don't want to debate the actual facts. You simply go on repeating what you *believe* regardless of facts.
Click to expand...

You're in on the conspiracy aren't you? Some sort of false flag waver?

How do I know you're not Mossad/CIA/Illuminati?
 
BeAChooser said:
You are like a 9/11 Truther. You don't want to debate the actual facts.
Click to expand...

1) facts are facts, they are not really debatable, unless you are trying to sell some sort of CT
2) we have no problem discussing actual facts in our debates. What we are tired of is your made up nonsense that you are trying to peddle as facts.
 
BeAChooser said:
Like I said. You are like a 9/11 Truther. You don't want to debate the actual facts. You simply go on repeating what you *believe* regardless of facts.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Just as so many 9/11 truthers insist that the WTC was broght down by plane crashes when they were clearly caused by demolition charges, Ron Brown truthers insist that he was killed by a plane crash when he was clearly shot in the head.

:boggled:
 
Ladewig said:
OK, I'll ask. If Ron Brown was killed by a bullet to the head how was it done?

1) He was shot and his corpse was loaded on the plan and strapped into a seat.
2) He was shot on the plane and the assassin escaped by parachute.
3) He was shot on the plane and the assassin died in the crash.
4) He survived the crash and was shot by the assassin who arrived at the crash scene before anyone else.
5) He was shot and never was on the plane but his body was placed in the wreckage.
6) He was shot and not only was he never on the plane, he was never in the wreckage.
7) Something else

Followup questions. Did the conspirators cause the plane to crash? If so, was their intent to hide one murder by committing 34 other murders?
Click to expand...

Don't pretend you are interested in the answers to those questions, Ladewig. Because the issue of *scenario* has been addressed on numerous Ron Brown threads where you've shown no interest. In fact, in the few cases where you have deigned to discuss Brown, you simply ran when I did respond to you. For example, you did that here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4107657#post4107657 . So you don't fool me. This is just another tactic. You want to throw out strawman and red herrings rather than address the actual facts in the case. You want to debate like a 9/11 Truther. I get that. I understand.

Now for those who do honestly want answers to questions like yours and to know all the facts, I suggest they go read threads like these where all that has been discussed:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87011 (many posts of interest, starting with post #22)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87840 (many posts of interest, starting with post #106)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90750 (many, many posts, starting with #1)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119618 (another large thread on Brown … and Foster)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121045 (about how National Geographics and Discovery misrepresented what happened in their *history* of the subject)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134001 (more excellent, fact filled posts on Brown)

And if you have questions after reading them, then ask me them on those threads where they belong, and I'll be happy to respond. But I'm betting you won't, Ladewig. Just as you won't want to discuss the facts in the Foster case either (say here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140659&page=11 ). :D
 
BeAChooser said:
Don't pretend you are interested in the answers to those questions, Ladewig. Because the issue of *scenario* has been addressed on numerous Ron Brown threads where you've shown no interest. In fact, in the few cases where you have deigned to discuss Brown, you simply ran when I did respond to you. For example, you did that here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4107657#post4107657 . So you don't fool me. This is just another tactic. You want to throw out strawman and red herrings rather than address the actual facts in the case. You want to debate like a 9/11 Truther. I get that. I understand.

Now for those who do honestly want answers to questions like yours and to know all the facts, I suggest they go read threads like these where all that has been discussed:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87011 (many posts of interest, starting with post #22)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87840 (many posts of interest, starting with post #106)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90750 (many, many posts, starting with #1)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119618 (another large thread on Brown … and Foster)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121045 (about how National Geographics and Discovery misrepresented what happened in their *history* of the subject)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134001 (more excellent, fact filled posts on Brown)

And if you have questions after reading them, then ask me them on those threads where they belong, and I'll be happy to respond. But I'm betting you won't, Ladewig. Just as you won't want to discuss the facts in the Foster case either (say here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140659&page=11 ). :D
Click to expand...

Why the wall of links?:D

If you are not going to answer the questions he asked, just say so. :D

But until you answer them, all the rest of your 'facts' about Ron Brown being shot have no meaning.:D
 
BeAChooser said:
Don't pretend you are interested in the answers to those questions, Ladewig. Because the issue of *scenario* has been addressed on numerous Ron Brown threads where you've shown no interest. In fact, in the few cases where you have deigned to discuss Brown, you simply ran when I did respond to you. For example, you did that here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4107657#post4107657 . So you don't fool me. This is just another tactic. You want to throw out strawman and red herrings rather than address the actual facts in the case. You want to debate like a 9/11 Truther. I get that. I understand.

Now for those who do honestly want answers to questions like yours and to know all the facts, I suggest they go read threads like these where all that has been discussed:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87011 (many posts of interest, starting with post #22)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87840 (many posts of interest, starting with post #106)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90750 (many, many posts, starting with #1)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119618 (another large thread on Brown … and Foster)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121045 (about how National Geographics and Discovery misrepresented what happened in their *history* of the subject)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134001 (more excellent, fact filled posts on Brown)

And if you have questions after reading them, then ask me them on those threads where they belong, and I'll be happy to respond. But I'm betting you won't, Ladewig. Just as you won't want to discuss the facts in the Foster case either (say here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140659&page=11 ). :D
Click to expand...

My money is on scenario #1, in an elaborate Weekend At Bernie's-esque farce.

Say, BAC, while we're on the subject of people running from threads, were you ever going to get around to answering any of the questions left for you in the "NBC: network of godless progressives" thread?
 
BeAChooser said:
A statement which makes you a liar since I did address your questions in those links. So obviously, you didn't go look at them like claimed. :D
Click to expand...

If it's in there, I missed it. Given the masses of convoluted text in those links, I think it excusable. So please apologize for calling me a liar. :D

How about just answering the question as asked right here. Why are you avoiding it? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom