Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BoPepper
Try reading the Air Force report:

I have.

Oh, I forgot. The Air Force was part of the coverup.

Well explain this. Why was this the first crash in Air Force HISTORY (except for one friendly fire shoot down in Iraq where the cause was immediately obvious) to SKIP the Safety Board part of the normal Air Force investigation. Instead they just held an Accident Investigation Board. You do realize, don't you, that the Safety Board is the part of the crash investigation process SPECIFICALLY charged with "FINDING THE CAUSE" of the crash. The Accident Investigation Report (that you refer to) is meant to provide a document for use in any legal actions that follow.

So tell me why your report doesn't even mention the FACT that pathologists at the examination of Brown's body said the wound looked like a bullet wound and called for an autopsy (which, by the way, was refused on orders from the Whitehouse and JCS)? Hummm? Don't you think the families of the victims and their lawyers would have wanted to know that?

Why doesn't that report even MENTION the existance of x-rays that suggest a lead snowstorm (according EVERY pathologist that has made a statement about them). A lead snowstorm is indicative of a bullet wound. You don't suppose the families and their lawyers would have wanted to know that?

And I could go on and on listing FACTS that your BOGUS report doesn't even mention which lawyers would definitely want to know. Why is it that the families of the victims had to learn about these facts YEARS after the crash when the whistleblowers whose careers the Air Force RUINED made those FACTS known?

Can you say Y2K? I know you could.

I have no clue what you are referring to so I'll ask you again to specifically point out any errors, misrepresentations or lies in the reports by Ruddy on the Brown case. If you can't do it then your smear against Newsmax is GROUNDLESS as far as this case is concerned. You do realize that everything in Ruddy's articles has been cooberated in interviews by others with some of the principles (like Captain Janowski)?

Your facts conflict with the Air Force report.

NO. The Air Force Report conveniently doesn't mention the facts. FACT: I can name SIX pathologists involved in the Brown case or who have looked at the x-rays and photos since who say the wound looked like a bullet wound and Brown should have been autopsied. You won't be able to name ANY except Dickerson, head of AFIP, who I can prove LIED about the nature of the wound and the opinions of his staff (the pathologists). Even the pathologist who was in charge of the examination and is quoted in the report (Gormley) has now admitted that what he stated in the report was INCORRECT and that Brown should have been autopsied. And I could name many other facts that just conveniently were never mentioned in that report. Tell me, does that report explain the loss of transponder and radio contact when the plane was still 8 miles from the crash site? Well does it?

When did I defend Clinton or dishonor a single military officer?

Well you are in essence saying that Colonel Cogswell, Captain Janowski and several other military officers at AFIP are LIARS and that it was ok for the Air Force leadership to destroy their careers rather than simply show them that they are wrong about the facts they have alleged. And in doing that you ARE defending Clinton.

111 posted on 02/02/2002 9:38:00 PM PST by BeAChooser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies ]


To: BeAChooser
In your apparently irrational zeal to "get" someone here you display your ignorance of procedures. Even critics such as Ian Goddard admit that the NTSB has SUPREME jurisdiction over all air disasters, even over the FAA, and even over the Air Force if it so chooses to exercise such jurisdiction. In fact, you destroy your own case, because the fact that the Air Force gave UP this jurisdiction when (to the conspiratorial thinker) it could have superceded "official" channels, proves all the more this was handled in a normal manner.

Stick with the radar data. Oh, I forgot, you don't have any.

136 posted on 02/19/2002 9:55:54 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies ]

To: BeAChooser
On the Brown case, don't be ridiculous. "I can get six pathologists . . . blah, blah, blah." That's like saying you can get six lawyers to agree to some position you have.

Yes, pathologists have looked at Brown's photos, and at JFK's, and at Sacco-Vanzetti's, and everyone elses. It's amazing that they don't agree, either. In the absence of real evidence (radar data, actual sworn court testimony by Naval officers on board the vessel that "fired" the missile), why do you keep recirculating rumors and third-hand references?

And if the pathologists come to one conclusion about Brown, what makes you think that even well-trained honest Air Force people would not come to a completely different conclusion based on the fact that they AREN'T pathologists? In your view, they can't possibly disagree with your world conspiracy and be "honest."

137 posted on 02/19/2002 10:01:00 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson