Allen773
Graduate Poster
Don't feed the troll people.
Vince Foster and Ron Brown conspiracies
- Thread starter Undesired Walrus
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ron brown vince foster
Again, I will do you one better. I will let you assume the autopsy has taken place and come back with any result you want. You say he was shot? He was shot. You say he wasn't shot? He wasn't shot. You say he was decapitated and that exposed to some kind of massive localized electrical discharge... Well, that's a bit silly.
You haven't really given your version of the events of that day anywhere that I can see. You go into theories a lot, have a lot of questions, and are all over the post-crash investigation, but not much about what you personally think happened that day.In point of fact, I've already addressed these questions you list on multiple occasions. If you'd bothered to even read this thread, you'd have seen some of them answered. That you won't do that makes me doubt your sincerity in your above acceptance. That you want to focus on them is nothing but a distraction. Your time would be better spent taking your new found acceptance of the possibility that Brown was murdered and joining me in convincing the others on this thread.
But take your time, no rush ...
Is this thread, you briefly say that it might be possible that there was an operative on the plane, but when someone points out the problems with this, you say you never said there was an operative on the plane. You briefly discuss the odd choice to shoot a man who was in the middle of a plane crash when he might just be hit over the head with a piece of debris. You say that it would be difficult to make the head injury believable with a blunt instrument, but that brings us right back to the "why use a gun" question, which remains unanswered.
That's pretty much it.
I really would like to hear what you think happened. If you have written out your version of the events somewhere, could you show me a link to the exact post please? Everything I can find by you on this subject seems to indicate that something happened, but I can't seem to find where you tell us what you think happened.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
First of all, the concern expresssed in this thread is that no autopsy occurred. I'm trying to motivate the exhumation and performance of one. So I'm not going to assume one's done. And why didn't you formally call for one like I asked? I'd like to see you do that rather than dance around it ... if you want to convince me your last post wasn't just another debating tactic.
Second, I don't have a preference, one way or the other, regarding the result of an autopsy (assuming we manage to get one done), as long as the autopsy is done by independent pathologists that can be trusted. In that regard, I would suggest at least putting Janoski, Cogswell and a few of the other whistleblowers in the room when the autopsy is performed. If independent pathologists find no evidence of gunshot, and these observers see nothing wrong with their method or findings, I will drop this conspiracy theory like a hot potato. But if they do find evidence ...
No, Random. I said that numerous forensic pathologists who were experts in gunshot said the wound and x-rays were consistent with a bullet wound and therefore Brown should have been autopsied. That's all I said. And I believe in the last post you agreed I was correct. Are you now hedging?
Thank you for demonstrating that your "acceptance" in the last post was a ruse and you aren't serious about this. You are just trying yet another tactic to distract and avoid addressing the facts I've presented. You are doing a good job of discrediting yourself, Random. Keep digging that hole.
Then you haven't bothered to actually read this or any of the other three threads I linked earlier. You are wasting my and our readers' time. Readers will be able to see that just by going back and reading my previous posts. And what I "personally think happened that day" is rather moot. I don't have all the facts nor do I pretend to know exactly happened. What matters is what those pathologists and photographer said ... and what the AIB report does NOT say.
Let me repeat the statements I made in this thread regarding the topic of whether there was someone on the plane:
So your statement only proves that you either didn't read this thread and are bluffing your way through this, or that you did and are now willing to distort (lie?) about what I said. Either way, you're discrediting yourself, random. Keep digging, Democrat.
After a pilot I flew with died in the accident with Ron Brown, I was interested in the investigation. When you see the pathetic attempts to make a conspiracy theory out on Brown's death, I wonder why they are so bad? It is so easy to see they are dredging up lies, and unsupported hearsay.
I went over the facts and evidence and found the truth. You see, my friend, the pilot I flew with was blamed; don't worry, pilots always take the part of the blame on this type of accident. The pilot is ultimately responsible anyway.
The funny part about this lack of conspiracy, I can't find any loose ends. Gee, the 9/11 truth dolts would be happy, they fired a whole slew of people who failed to take action and save the crew from an accident. The USAF FIRED people in the chain of command who contributed to the accident.
Lets look at the claims. Ron Brown and 34 other in a plane crash in Croatia on 3.4.1996. Many CT people claim that Ron Brown was shot in the head on a plane with 34 witnesses? That claim doesn"t even make sense? How did the shooters get off the plane? Here some more proof that Ron Brown died in a plane crash:
http://web.archive.org/web/20021002034252/http://www.af.mil/news/Jun1996/n19960610_960550.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20021002034252/http://www.af.mil/news/Jun1996/n19960610_960550.html
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
beachnut, beachnut. I'm beginning to feel a little sorry for you. This is soooooo pathetic. You think noone will look back through this thread and see that you and this claim of yours were totally thrashed? You are going to have to come up with something new. Like did you tell the family of your "friend" about the pathologist statements and the fact that Peters lied to them in his letter? Did you? Did you?
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Come on moon, let's see a little critical thinking here. Do you really think that Air Force News is a source that's going to report anything besides the official story? Get real.
Your link doesn't mention that was the first time in US history (except one case of friendly fire) when the Air Force skipped the SIB portion of the normal crash investigation. Why not? Not noteworthy?
And where is mention of the pathologists and what their concerns were at the examination? Nowhere in that article. Why not? Not noteworthy?
I also notice there is no mention of losing communication with the plane when it was still 7-8 miles from the mountain. Why not? Not noteworthy?
I especially love this statement in your source:
How considerate of them. What's not said is that the report made NO MENTION of the concerns expressed by expert pathologists and a photographer at the examination. Or their calls for an autopsy that was overruled at the highest levels. And as far as I can tell, it didn't even include pictures of the wound in Brown's head or the x-rays of his head. Because Brown's family which got the report apparently didn't know anything about that until the whistleblowers came forward.
Just how gullible are you, moon? You call yourself a skeptic?
maxpower1227
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,998
Yeah, I'm with you. BAC's last post was his most pathetic yet. After pulling out the "If you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd know that I already addressed what I think happened" card without actually giving specifics - for the 15th time, he finally caves and links to several of his own posts which all say something to the effect of "maybe it was ____" or "it could have been ___ or ____" or "who said ____ happened? I never said _____ happened!"
What a pathetic troll. *IGNORE*
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
boloboffin
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,986
I believe I sussed out a notion that Ron Brown was shot off site, the plane in a separate incident was intentionally crashed, killing most on board, and then Brown's body was planted in the wreckage.
Is that about the size of it, BAC?
Is that about the size of it, BAC?
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Still trying to join the ranks of those who've badly discredited themselves on this thread?
I kinda like how BAC praises himself so much; it highlights the fact no-one else does. You'ld think BAC would have figured out by now that if there was genuine proof of conspiracies surrounding Vince Foster and Ron Brown, then one could easily go to court; I guess that would be thinking too logically for BAC. As it is,he just ponces around on a bulletin board using Vince Foster and Ron Brown to praise himself with. Come after November, he's probably going to start claiming Obama was in on the alleged conspiracies.
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
Nothing really special here. BAC thinks/acts exactly like every other CTists, regardless if it's JFK, moon landing or 9/11.
BAC is just your garden variety CTists, who specializes in Clinton CT. I suspect if you scratch deep enough you'll find others inside his brain.
Last edited:
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
So your belief is that the family members of the thirty-five victims fall into two categories:
1. Those who care more about money and protecting their precious careers than doing everything humanly possible to bring their loved ones murderers to justice. Why do you assume that PEOPLE YOU DON'T KNOW are doing this?
2. Those who are too stupid to investigate the incident properly. The family members have access to all the same information that you do. What insight do you have that they don't? Or is it you're just smarter than they are?
boloboffin
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,986
Still trying to join the ranks of those who've badly discredited themselves on this thread?
That is what you believe to have happened here, isn't it? Feel free to actually explain what you see happening there. Only you know what's slouching around inside your skull.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Just so everyone knows, Gurdur doesn't like me because I badly embarrassed him during a discussion of the Vietnam war the first time we met on this forum. He hasn't been the same since. And I hope you all notice that he's not attempting to debate the facts in the Brown and Foster cases. Just throwing out more distractions, red herrings and adhominems ... so you won't look any further.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
I hope everyone has noticed that DavidJames is another who'd rather attack me than address the presented facts. It's almost as if this thread were fly paper ... for those who admired Clinton and feel the need to defend him. Of course, they can't defend him by actually debunking the facts ... so they try linking me to those who believe in the JFK, moon landing and 9/11 conspiracies. Which I do not. Getting desperate folks?