Split Thread Ron Brown's head wound

[BeAChooser]

No, you didn’t address my post.

Yes, I did address your post.

I have read the thread

Then why didn't you take note of what I noted Dr Fackler say?

 

[BeAChooser]

So, EMT’s are experts?

I stated no such thing. The only real verifiable experts in this case are the military and civilian forensic pathologists who have ALL (except for lying Colonel Dickerson) gone on record stating the wound and x-rays suggested a bullet injury and Brown should have been autopsied.

I posted the links in my last post only to show that there cases where even a .45 caliber bullet will remain in the body and there will be no exit wound. Just to show that there are types of .45 caliber ammunition that tend NOT to leave a body. But by no means is it definite that was a .45 caliber wound, assuming it was due to a bullet, as Dr Fackler stated.

Being that I am an EMT-P

So you claim.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

No, but Dr Cyril Wecht, one of the foremost pathologists in the US, concluded from all the material available on Brown's condition, that other than the hole in his head, there were no life threatening injuries.

The crash killed all but one person aboard instantly and one before he could be taken to a hospital. So is he claiming Brown would be the only person to survive injuries from the crash had he not been shot?

 

[kookbreaker]

The crash killed all but one person aboard instantly and one before he could be taken to a hospital. So is he claiming Brown would be the only person to survive injuries from the crash had he not been shot?

Well, you have to remember the super-powered assassin who wasn't listed as a passenger who also survived the crash to put the bullet in Ron Brown's head.

That guy, or the special assassin who knew exactly where the plane would crash and was waiting just for the one guy he knew would survive. He was also very careful to use just one bullet!

 

[BeAChooser]

The crash killed all but one person aboard instantly and one before he could be taken to a hospital. So is he claiming Brown would be the only person to survive injuries from the crash had he not been shot?

Well first, it wasn't a "he" that *officially* survived the crash and died (purportedly) on the way to the hospital. It was a she and her name was Sergeant Shelly Kelly. She was one of the stewardesses. And unlike Brown, her body was autopsied.

Now isn't that interesting? A mere stewardess' body gets autopsied, but a Secretary of State, even though forensic pathologists are standing around his body at Dover saying *That sure look like a bullet wound, he needs an autopsy*, doesn't get an autopsy? Wouldn't you say that's a little curious?

And are you certain there was only one survivor. Sure, that's what was officially and publically claimed, but are you aware that a confidential timeline, discovered in the files of Warren Christopher (Secretary of State at the time) during a FOIA search years later by Judicial Watch, included the following item 40 minutes after the wreckage was discovered: "Commerce Dept. has heard from Advance Ira Sokowitz in Sarajevo that two individuals have been recovered alive from the crash." So who was this second person, RY? The US government has never commented on what that official document said. Mum's the word. And the left wing, mainstream media made sure that very few people ever learned that such a document was found. Wouldn't you say that's a little curious?

And by the way, Ira Sockowitz was an associate of John Huang (a known Chinese spy involved in Chinagate) and was himself implicated in illegally obtaining Secret materials (related to China) while working at Commerce. And please, in *your* scenario, explain how Ira Sockowitz, who years later admitted he was supposed to be on the ill-fated flight but missed the flight, was still able to get to Dubrovnik in time to be Johnny On The Spot for Commerce during the very first moments of the on-site rescue effort? Hmmmmmm?

Also, why would it be so strange that Ron Brown and a steward(ess) could survive a crash that killed everyone else on board. It would depend on where they were at the time, don't you think? What if they were in the rear part of the plane and that rear part of the plane survived the crash intact?

Here are some images of the crash site:

That last 15 feet or so of fuselage was intact. We know Kelly's seat was located there. Perhaps Brown was visiting her at the time? Perhaps Brown was seated nearby? Or perhaps Brown was seated, buckled in and just got lucky? We know, according to Christopher Ruddy's interview with Colonel Cogswell, who was at the crash site as Dover's point man, that "passengers were thrown helter-skelter, some breaking loose of their seats belts, others flying through the air still buckled in. Most of the bodies were found intact." And Cyril Wecht, one of the leading forensic pathologists in the nation, is on record stating that except for the wound in Brown's head, his injuries were survivable. That's the fact you need to address in *your* RonBrownTruther scenario.

 

[BeAChooser]

Well, you have to remember the super-powered assassin who wasn't listed as a passenger who also survived the crash to put the bullet in Ron Brown's head.

That guy, or the special assassin who knew exactly where the plane would crash and was waiting just for the one guy he knew would survive. He was also very careful to use just one bullet!

LOL! This is a good example why I used kookbreaker to illustrate VinceFosterTruthers (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6405371&postcount=490 ). Here he's applying that same basic dishonesty to Ron Brown. Let's examine his statements one by one to see what he misrepresented or left out.

First, kookbreaker implies that if Brown was killed in flight then the would be assassin would have had to get on the ill-fated flight without being listed on the passenger manifest. But he neglected to tell you is that no passenger manifest was ever found. Here:

http://cryptome.info/0001/ct43-060796.htm

Another issue, the board examined was passenger manifesting procedures. Aircrews are directed to prepare a passenger manifest prior to each take-off to account for passengers onboard. These manifests are then maintained by the European Operations Center. No passenger manifest was found after this accident. A passenger list had to be reconstructed by the U.S. Embassy in Zagreb.

So they can't be certain who was on the plane.

Next, kookbreaker suggests that if Brown was killed on the ground by some sort of clean up crew (just to make sure), the assassin would have had to know where the plane was coming down. And *naturally* that's silly. But is it?

The Air Force has admitted that a portable beacon went missing from the Dubrovnik before the crash. And Aviation Week (a noted magazine) stated in an article that such a beacon could have been used to spoof the plane into hitting the mountain in the manner it did. Now think about it. If you were going to spoof the plane into a mountain, wouldn't you need to cut communication with the aircraft before you did it? Otherwise the airport could tell the pilot he was off course. And what would it take to cut communication? Something totally implausible? No. You might not even need someone on board to do it. A bomb on a timer or altimeter or attached to a some sort of radio receiver might do it.

And according to Aviation Week (April 8, 1996 - http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/BROWN/h1.gif ), "Tower controllers cleared the jet to land just before losing radio contact at the same time Zagreb Air Traffic Control and a USAF AWACS aircraft lost sight of the 737 on radar." In other words, they simultaneously and mysteriously lost voice and transponder contact with the plane when it was still 12 miles from the airport and 8 miles from the crash site. How convenient. And this loss of communication has never been explained by the Air Force or any of my detractors. Never. It's just been ignored. Don't you think the Air Force should have found out why two separate systems ceased functioning simultaneously, long before the plane hit the mountain? Hmmmmm?

And what about on the ground? You'd need someone to make sure the airport's regular beacons weren't functioning properly otherwise the pilot would still be able to find the airport. You want to make the plane crash at a known off-course point. Well, what a coincidence that the Croatian responsible for maintaining the beacons (both portable and fixed) at Dubrovnik airport, Niko Junic, committed "suicide" just a few days after the crash ... before anyone could interview him. How convenient. He shot himself in the chest with a shotgun. Isn't that a curious way to commit suicide? And what was his reason? Well according to the NYTimes, it was because of a failed romance. But wouldn't romance be the last thing on a person's mind immediatedly after a crash like this at the airport one is responsible for? Something just doesn't smell right in that explanation. And who do we have to depend on with regards to the claim he committed suicide? ... the son of Croatian president Franco Tudjman. For those who don't know Tudjman was a war criminal and very interested in negotiating trade deals with Clinton's *friends* (or should we say campaign contributors). And not long after Brown's death, he did.

Here's something else. AWACS data showed there were multiple 90 degree corrections by the plane shortly after they lost communication with the airport … corrections that took the plane onto a new heading. All Major General Coolidge, who headed the investigation, had to say when asked about this at his final briefing was that his technical experts told him that the sudden turns were anomalies of no significance. No significance? Really?

And one more thing you might need to make this plan work … time for the cleanup crew on the ground to get to the crash ahead of everyone else and do what was required before official rescuers could arrive. And what do you know. Initially, the government announced that the plane crashed in the Adiatric so all resources are diverted there for a while. It was hours and hours later before the first rescuers officially arrived at the crash site. Plenty of time for someone who knew roughly where the plane was coming down to get there and do the job.

And as to someone on the ground, do you know the Associated Press published an article stating that the first Croatian rescuers at the site (and they were officially the first people to arrive) said they encountered several Americans that were already at the scene when they arrived? Curious. Care to explain who those people were? Because the government never did.

So you see how RonBrownTruthers, like kookbreaker, operate? By not telling you the whole story. By leading you to believe things that aren't true. And by repeating their lies long after those lies have been pointed out in previous threads.

 

[kookbreaker]

You can wall-of-text all you want, BAC. The only one acting like a truther is you with your obsession on minutia while ignoring the absolute absurdity of the overall scenario.

Yes, BAC. It is silly. You've got got a pile of nonsense. Nothing more.

Crap like this:

He shot himself in the chest with a shotgun. Isn't that a curious way to commit suicide?

Why is that so strange? The shotgun? Even in the war-torn balkans shotguns are probably the most common firearms available - being allowed to a degree in the most gun-controlling nations. Shot in the chest? Well its either that or the head, and for that you might need the lanky arms of a Kurt Cobain. A search on google turns up more than one example of this method of suicide.

There's nothing dishonest about me pointing out that all your typing adds up to nothing. You've got whispers in the dark, insinuations, and rumors, most of which you invented. Beachnut already took you to the cleaners and all you could do was bawl, whine, regurgitate the same crap, and baselessly accuse Beachnut of lying.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3901329&postcount=68

You posted reply after reply in that thread desperately trying to win points after you were taken to the woodshed. It got you nowhere. People tried to reason with you, and you made things even worse.

Way to go.

 

[BeAChooser]

Crap like this:

He shot himself in the chest with a shotgun. Isn't that a curious way to commit suicide?

Ah, so now come the foul words. Why is that not unexpected?

Why is that so strange? The shotgun? Even in the war-torn balkans shotguns are probably the most common firearms available - being allowed to a degree in the most gun-controlling nations. Shot in the chest?

First, notice that kookbreaker ignored all the rest of what I noted. Like a Truther, he picks out just one thing and ignores the other 99% of the facts.

A search on google turns up more than one example of this method of suicide.

Really? Well I just did a google search with the search keywords "suicide by shotgun": http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=suicide+by+shotgun&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 . And the first page of hits has (CAUTION: EXTREMELY VIOLENT IMAGES):

1) A video titled "Shotgun Suicide Survivor. This is AJ Reed, At the age of 16 he shot himself in the head with a shotgun" (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1aa_1171990428 )

2) A video this time actually showing a criminal committing suicide with a shotgun … to the head. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJzsWGR-zfU )

3) An image of a suicide from a shotgun to the head. (http://www.bestgore.com/suicide/12-gauge-shotgun-suicide-blast-under-chin/ )

4) A link (http://www.suicidemethods.net/pix/listpix.htm ) on suicide methods that links to photos of 10 suicide victims by shotgun to the head and 0 victims by shotgun to anywhere else.

5) A wikipedia article that links to an article (http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/173_11_041200/herdson/herdson.html ) that describes a suicide where the dead man tried to kill himself by shooting himself in the chest. It was so difficult to do that he had to shoot himself three times and eventually only succeeded by holding the barrel with both hands, with the muzzle in contact with his chest, and using his toes to discharge the shotgun.

and

6) A news article about a man who died from a self-inflicted shotgun blast to the head. (http://articles.nydailynews.com/201...tgun-blast-snow-covered-car-residential-block )

Are you starting to get the picture, folks, about kookbreaker's "evidence"?

Beachnut already took you to the cleaners and all you could do was bawl, whine, regurgitate the same crap, and baselessly accuse Beachnut of lying.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3901329&postcount=68

LOL! Let's see what kookbreaker considers taking me "to the cleaners"?

1) Beachnut claimed he was a personal friend of the pilot and his family, and therefore knew what happened to Brown. I asked him whether as a friend, he bothered to tell his friend's family ANY of the various facts I've mentioned in these threads? Such as the fact that they were lied to in the AIB report and in the letter that the acting Secretary of the Air Force had sent them. And {crickets} was his response. Now what kind of *friend* is that?

2) Beachnut claimed he did his own investigation of Brown right after he died. And, apparently, the fruit of that investigation was a series of posts he made (linked in the thread kookbreaker linked) with large quantities of text and pictures stating what happened. But what beachnut didn't mention is that he plagerized Flight Safety Digest in creating those posts. He took his material from www.flightsafety.org/fsd/fsd_jul-aug96.pdf, "July-August 1996, Flight Safety Digest". And what he didn't mention is that the article he plagerized was written long before it became known that pathologists at the examination of Brown's body voiced concerns about gunshot and called for an autopsy. Long before the photo of the wound and the x-rays were posted on the internet. And THAT was beachnut's source for his supposed *facts* in this case.

3) And that source, in addition to being dated, is one that is verifiably wrong about key facts, that should have been known even at the time it was written. For example, as I noted, it attempted to deceive the reader into thinking Ron Brown's body was autopsied, when it was not. And when the facts in #2 above were made public, did Flight Safety Digest tell it's readers about them? Apparently not, so the source should be viewed as biased on top of everything else.

You see, folks, once again, there is a lot more to the story than kookbreaker would have you believe. Once again, he's acting like a Truther in the way he debates.

You posted reply after reply in that thread desperately trying to win points after you were taken to the woodshed. It got you nowhere.

LOL! And there is even more than the above to give one pause regarding kookbreaker singling out beachnut as the voice of truth in this debate … as having "taken me to the woodshed". Go back to the thread from which kookbreaker got his post to see my response to beachnut's post. Here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3904725&postcount=76

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3904725&postcount=78

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3904725&postcount=79

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3904725&postcount=80 .

And what was beachnut's response to that? Simply to, like a Truther himself, regurgitate his links to the dated material that he plagerized from Flight Safety Digest. And to do it over and over on the thread, never once even acknowledging that his source was indeed Flight Safety Digest.

And that's kookbreaker's view of someone taking me "to the woodshed".

Even in later threads, beachnut added nothing to his mime and continued to ignore my questions to him. For example, in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=173795 , he brought the Brown issue into an unrelated thread in order to attack me. So I asked him why "someone who insists he was a good friend of the pilot of Brown's plane and his family", "apparently wasn't enough of a friend to inform the family about what the military forensic pathologists in the case discovered and said, or about the obvious lies contained in that letter they receive from the Acting Secretary of the Air Force telling them not to listen to the *rumors*." And beachnut's response? To again ignore my question and simply claim I was spreading lies. In fact, what he admitted he did was tell the pilots family that "there are idiots who make up lies".

So I responded with this: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5860539&postcount=42 , regarding that claim and how wrong it was not to let his friend's family know the facts I've noted. Which beachnut simply ignored as well. And did this change his behavior? Well, ask yourself, can you change a Truther?

No. He posted again on another thread, claiming that Brown was a pilot he flew with who died due to an accident. So I posted this: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5873338&postcount=79 , showing how pathetically dishonest beachnut had been in debating the death of Ron Brown. Example after example to illustrate his dishonesty. And THAT is the person that kookbreaker brings to the table as his source of truth in this matter. One RonBrownTruther citing another RonBrownTruther.

 

[kookbreaker]

First, notice that kookbreaker ignored all the rest of what I noted. Like a Truther, he picks out just one thing and ignores the other 99% of the facts.

Because I am not wasting my time with your other silly claims and speculations.

Really? Well I just did a google search with the search keywords "suicide by shotgun": http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=suicide+by+shotgun&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 . And the first page of hits has (CAUTION: EXTREMELY VIOLENT IMAGES):

See? All that typing and those links and you didn't even do it right. Try 'Suicide Shotgun Chest" and you'll find its not so unusual.

Are you starting to get the picture, folks, about kookbreaker's "evidence"?

We certainly see how you search for yours.

LOL! Let's see what kookbreaker considers taking me "to the cleaners"?

1) Beachnut claimed he was a personal friend of the pilot and his family, and therefore knew what happened to Brown. I asked him whether as a friend, he bothered to tell his friend's family ANY of the various facts I've mentioned in these threads? Such as the fact that they were lied to in the AIB report and in the letter that the acting Secretary of the Air Force had sent them. And {crickets} was his response. Now what kind of *friend* is that?

So Beachnut doesn't bother the family with your insane conspiracy ravings. That's being a friend more than anything else.

2) Beachnut claimed he did his own investigation of Brown right after he died. And, apparently, the fruit of that investigation was a series of posts he made (linked in the thread kookbreaker linked) with large quantities of text and pictures stating what happened. But what beachnut didn't mention is that he plagerized Flight Safety Digest in creating those posts. He took his material from www.flightsafety.org/fsd/fsd_jul-aug96.pdf, "July-August 1996, Flight Safety Digest". And what he didn't mention is that the article he plagerized was written long before it became known that pathologists at the examination of Brown's body voiced concerns about gunshot and called for an autopsy. Long before the photo of the wound and the x-rays were posted on the internet. And THAT was beachnut's source for his supposed *facts* in this case.

*Yawn*. Once again the autopsy means nothing in the larger picture. A small number of pathologists who only examine some X-rays say what you want to hear and you think it is gawdz TRVTH. It means nothing. I am reminded of the X-ray 'expert' who looked at Terri Schiavo's X-rays and declared it was 'not that bad' when a good part of her brain was essentially liquid. (the same 'expert' also declared that Bill Clinton must have AIDS or Cancer after he compared a studio head shot taken while Clinton was in office with an unstaged shot in heavy shadowed sunlight in 2005-6.)

3) And that source, in addition to being dated, is one that is verifiably wrong about key facts, that should have been known even at the time it was written. For example, as I noted, it attempted to deceive the reader into thinking Ron Brown's body was autopsied, when it was not. And when the facts in #2 above were made public, did Flight Safety Digest tell it's readers about them? Apparently not, so the source should be viewed as biased on top of everything else.

Quite simply because your 'facts' are nothing of the sort. End of story.

If your evidence was a tenth as solid in as you claim it is you'd be at the police. But you aren't. Its a big pile of speculation and hearsay.

You see, folks, once again, there is a lot more to the story than kookbreaker would have you believe. Once again, he's acting like a Truther in the way he debates.

The very fact that you call people who disagree with you 'truthers' is more demonstration of your bullying and arrogant nature. The fact is the only reason you are not a truther is that 9/11 took place under a Republican administration. You are that much of a psychopartisan.

BTW, you are talking to the 'folks'. How many have ever agreed with your looney theories? How many in these threads have ever agreed with you that I am a 'truther'? Did you ever present your case in the 9/11 subforum that I am like a truther to those who deal with truthers? Didn't think so.

 

[BeAChooser]

Try 'Suicide Shotgun Chest" and you'll find its not so unusual.

Sure, let's look at the first page of links from your browser search and compare it with the first page of hits from mine:

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_gunshot_suicide - the case I already mentioned where the man finally managed to kill himself with a shotgun to the chest by pulling the trigger with his toes. He succeeded on his third attempt, and one of the previous attempts involved trying to shoot himself in the throat with the shotgun (which I suppose should count more as a head shot than a chest shot).

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Kurt_Cobain - concerns the death of Cobain by shotgun to the head.

3) http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090402104700AAeqWTA - a question on yahoo by an unidentified person that claims knowledge of someone who committed suicide by shooting themselves in the heart. But that author then questions whether that was possible (he notes that the coroner although stating it was a self inflicted wound was unable to determine how he did it) and suggested it was a murder instead, given that the man was an accused child molester. The thread also has a poster saying he "dated a lady whose husband had committed suicide with a shotgun to the mouth." And a bunch of folks suggesting the accused child molester might have done it by pulling the trigger with his toes.

4) http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f26/suicide-multiple-shot-gun-hits-chest-throat-heart-9471/ - a post on another forum that also mentions the case I already noted where the man killed himself (after 2 other attempts) by pulling the trigger with his toes.

5) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17539589 - an abstract describing the case of a hunter who was found dead from a shotgun blast to the chest that happened in his hide while he was hunting. He apparently placed the gun on a camping chair and one of the triggers interlocked with the chair's cushion causing the gun to discharge while it was pointing at his chest. The title of the article includes the phrase, "homicide, accident or suicide?". So we don't really know if this was a case of suicide or an accident based on that link although what's stated would lead me to believe accident. Also note that under related citations on the right side of the web page there is the case of a suicide by shotgun to the head (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7778971 ).

6) http://www.suicide.org/memorials/paul-racine.html - ahhhhh, finally a case of a suicide (a man named Paul Racine) by shotgun to the chest. Of course the organization listing it is trying to get money to prevent suicides and I could find no other accounts of this event on the internet. But ok, kb, I'll give you 1 case, so far, that isn't just ridiculous.

7) http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/173_11_041200/herdson/herdson.html - yet another reference to the case I already cited about the man finally managing to shoot himself in the chest with a shotgun by pulling the trigger with his toes. In fact, it's the same citation that my search linked.

8) http://www.myspace.com/shotgunsuicidesmyspace/photos/16912426#{"ImageId":16912426} - a page that has nothing to do with actual suicide or shooting oneself in the chest. It's about a different type of "chest of drawers" on a porn actress.

9) http://www.myspace.com/shotgunsuicidesmyspace/photos/16912424#{"ImageId":16912424} - another link to the same woman in #8.

So let's recap.

The first page of hits in my general search for shotgun suicides indicated numerous deaths to the head and only one to the chest (one which required the use of toes to accomplish and was preceded by an attempt to the head). That alone should suggest that shotgun suicides to the chest are rare.

The first page of hits in your search which looked specifically for suicides to the chest had 3 links to that same ridiculous toe case, several hits to cases of shotguns suicides to the head, and only one case of a shotgun suicide to the chest that was remotely believable (but not verifiable).

Bottom line is that shooting oneself in the chest with a shotgun seems quite "unusual", just like I suggested. You starting to get the picture yet about the way kookbreaker operates, folks?

And by the way, a look at the second page of hits using kb's search criteria reveals that in addition to a bunch of links that neither mention shotguns or suicide, or that are nothing more than voicing questions as to whether suicide by shotgun to the chest is possible, there is

- an article on a suicide attempt to the chest by gun (not shotgun),

- another article on a suicide death to the chest by gun (not shotgun),

- another article on the hunter who was hit by a shotgun where a camping chair's cushion appears to have accidently interlocked with the trigger,

- a claim by some unknown person on a blog that an unidentifed friend killed himself with a shotgun to the chest,

- a case where a person (Ted Richardson, involved in the OKC bombing investigation) purportedly committed suicide with a shotgun blast to the chest but which the author was suggesting was a murder instead. And with regards to that concern, I did a little side trip and found that according to http://www.scribd.com/doc/6235367/T...g-and-the-Politics-of-Terror-by-David-Hoffman , "The Medical Examiner's report stated: 'No powder residue is apparent, either on the external aspect of the wound or in the shirt." An interesting observation considering Richardson had allegedly pushed a shotgun up to his chest and pulled the trigger." So pardon me if I'm skeptical about this supposed suicide, too.

- and, finally, another article on Cobain who reportedly shot himself in the head with a shotgun.

So again, it looks like verifiable cases of shotgun suicides to the chest are a rare thing.

So Beachnut doesn't bother the family with your insane conspiracy ravings.

No, beachnut doesn't bother his *friend's* family with verifiable facts that prove the government didn't tell them the whole story and in fact lied to them repeatedly. And one can't help but notice that neither beachnut or you has ever attempted to counter the specifics that I offered in regard to that assertion. You simply dismiss it out of hand, like a Truther would do.

Once again the autopsy means nothing in the larger picture. A small number of pathologists who only examine some X-rays say what you want to hear and you think it is gawdz TRVTH. It means nothing.

Again you argue like a Truther.

First, that "small number of pathologists" (about half a dozen) not only looked at xrays, but some saw the wound first hand in Dover, and all of them were able to look at images of the wound in photos. One of them was even the pathologist in charge of examining Brown's body. You had to have known this and yet you misrepresented the facts in Truther-like fashion.

Second, that "small number of pathologists" are the ONLY pathologists anywhere who have made statements regarding Brown's death and what the wound and x-rays showed. So, with the exception of Colonel Dickerson, who lied about the nature of the wound and the opinions of his staff (the other pathologists) to the public, 100% of the experts (and pathologists are the only real experts where the cause of death is concerned) who have gone on record anywhere, have stated the wound looked like a bullet wound and Brown should have been autopsied. That hardly "means nothing", except to a person who argues like a Truther.

Quote:
3) And that source, in addition to being dated, is one that is verifiably wrong about key facts, that should have been known even at the time it was written. For example, as I noted, it attempted to deceive the reader into thinking Ron Brown's body was autopsied, when it was not. And when the facts in #2 above were made public, did Flight Safety Digest tell it's readers about them? Apparently not, so the source should be viewed as biased on top of everything else.

Quite simply because your 'facts' are nothing of the sort. End of story.

Still running them, I see.

If your evidence was a tenth as solid in as you claim it is you'd be at the police. But you aren't. Its a big pile of speculation and hearsay.

How do you know who I've approached? Do you seriously think the police in this matter (the FBI) were unaware of the allegations? Of what the pathologists were saying? And it's not speculation or hearsay that the pathologists said those things. I saw them say that on TV and heard some of them say it during radio interviews. So I know this first hand, not by hearsay. In fact, even you should know it since at one time I linked a JREF thread on Brown to video clips and audio clips of the pathologists saying those things. And not one of you challenged what they had to say. And if what those pathologists said is *speculation*, then it's the speculation of experts. Experts which you simply want to ignore in Truther-like fashion, kb.

The very fact that you call people who disagree with you 'truthers' is more demonstration of your bullying and arrogant nature.

You deserve to be called a Truther on this issue, kb. For EXACTLY the same reasons that those who claim the WTC towers were brought down by bombs deserve to be called Truthers. As my posts comparing RonBrownTruthers to 9/11Truthers have proven.

The fact is the only reason you are not a truther is that 9/11 took place under a Republican administration. You are that much of a psychopartisan.

LOL! Still don't want to actually debate the facts in this case? Looking for a new redherring to try in order to avoid that?

 

[The Charnel Expanse]

The fact is the only reason you are not a truther is that 9/11 took place under a Republican administration. You are that much of a psychopartisan.

!
Thank god I'm the not the only one who sees this.

 

[kookbreaker]

All that fricking listing of a google search and for what? I didn't say shotgun to the chest wounds were common as heck, I said they were not as unusual as you tried to imply.

And once again, you keep it up with the 'truther' comments. Nobody buys it. You were too much of a coward to run it past the people who deal with truthers. You probably know what their answer is. As I said before you calling me a truther is like the stupid kid in middle school who called everyone a 'slut', male or female. He was too dumb to know the meaning of the word and just thought he was being clever. He was an being dumb.

It is the same in your case.

 

[kookbreaker]

!
Thank god I'm the not the only one who sees this.

Indeed. You notice that is about the only conspiracy he doesn't seem to believe in?* Funny how it happened under a Republican administration.





* OK, I don't know what he thinks of the JFK & RFK conspiracy theories, but then again he's on record as thinking Democrats are not human.

 

[BeAChooser]

Thank god I'm the not the only one who sees this.

Ah, another RonBrownTruther arrives. Do you remember, TCE, when you claimed that Snopes is "probably the most respected site of their kind" and I challenged you about the way Snopes either misrrepresented or lied about the facts in both the Ron Brown and Vince Foster deaths and directed you to these two posts: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3910399&postcount=107 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4226347&postcount=85 ? And do you remember what you did after that post to you? Disappear.

 

[BeAChooser]

{crickets}

 

[beachnut]

Hey beachnut ... did you ever get around to telling the family of your *good friend* (the pilot of the ill fated plane) what all those forensic pathologists listed above had to say? Did you ever inform the family of your *good friend* that they were lied to by the Acting Secretary of the Air Force in that letter he sent them (remember that I pointed out the specific lies)? Or are you still letting them remain in the dark ... like a *good friend* would. (sarcasm)



ROTFLOL! Speaking of being delusional. It's either that or admitting you didn't actually read what gdnp wrote.

All the fancy flying stuff has you at a lost to understand it was an accident; lack of knowledge fuels crazy conspiracy theories, makes you look like a nut. You can't understand the flying accident, so you make up delusional claptrap backed with lies, hearsay and more delusions. You beat 911 truth at their own failed game in your own sandbox based on nonsense.

 

[BeAChooser]

All the fancy flying stuff has you at a lost to understand it was an accident; lack of knowledge fuels crazy conspiracy theories, makes you look like a nut. You can't understand the flying accident, so you make up delusional claptrap backed with lies, hearsay and more delusions. You beat 911 truth at their own failed game in your own sandbox based on nonsense.

So I gather you've not gotten around to telling the family of your *friend* that the Acting Secretary of the Air Force lied to them in that letter he sent them. You're such a *friend*. {sarcasm}

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

Indeed. You notice that is about the only conspiracy he doesn't seem to believe in?* Funny how it happened under a Republican administration.
* OK, I don't know what he thinks of the JFK & RFK conspiracy theories, but then again he's on record as thinking Democrats are not human.

I suspect he also is not a believer in the "October Surprise" from 1980, but yeah, he's ready to believe ANYTHING bad about the left and nothing bad about the right...

Are we sure he's not Glenn Beck???

 

[BeAChooser]

So, Myron Proudfoot, I take it you didn't come to this thread to talk about the facts in the Ron Brown case. Anything but THAT.