Never forget the Ron Brown Crash [Repost]

For those who never heard of it, let me tell you a story... a true story. And this story, my friend, could ultimately doom our republic in the long term. [Please pardon any errors. This is from memory.]

There was a lady named Kathleen Janowski. She was a career soldier, a forensics specialist in the Air Force. And she had a highly successful 22 year career. Something happened that completely changed her life. She was ordered to participate in looking over a cabinet member's body. So naturally, being that he was a cabinet member of the US presidency, and he died an untimely death, Janowski took this matter very seriously. He was Ron Brown, Secretary of Commerce. His body was found in a plane crash. Everyone assumed that he died from the crash. But any green, wet-behind-the-ears forensics specialist will tell you, don't be led by assumptions.

She was puzzled. Everyone was in a big rush. Everyone was talking in hushed tones. She noticed something at the top of Brown's head. She said, "Hey, this looks like a bullet hole." It was very odd for a wound from a plane crash, a perfectly round hole appearing to be the width of a 45 calabre or 9 milimeter bullet. People told her to be quiet. She studied the x-rays. They showed what could be a "lead snowstorm" in his head [possibly fragments of a bullet that had shattered inside his brain].

Suspicious of the way everyone was acting, Janowski decided to take her own personal photos of the head wound and the x-rays. Just as she suspected, there was no autopsy, the x-rays disappeared, and even the x-ray machine was destroyed. Also strange, another body was cremated against the wishes of the family, the result of some 'beaurocratic snafoo.' It was a scary time for Janowski. She had these photographs, and some funny things were happening around the death of a cabinet member. She was in the middle of something big and ugly. And she had those photos.

Next let us turn to Lt. Col. Stephen Cogswell. He, too, had a long and sucessful career in forensics. In fact, he was so esteemed in his abilities that he TRAINED FBI AGENTS in forensics. He was told to go to a plane crash site in Croatia and find out what caused a cabinet member to get a perfectly round hole in the top of his head. Being in the area, he undoubtedly heard about an air traffic controller. The Croatian air traffic controller who was in charge of the nearby airfield reportedly shot himself with a shotgun a few weeks after the crash. The reason for the reported suicide was over the loss of a girl friend.

Cogswell was having trouble with this assignment. The plane had been going at low speed when it crashed. For a hole to be that round, something would have to hit the head at a very high speed. Repeatedly, he told his military superiors that wreckage could not cause the head wound. They would not accept that as an answer. And they grew very impatient with him. It had to be from the wreckage, they said. And hurry up with finding that piece of wreckage. He was simply unable to do it. It was like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It seemed insane to keep trying.

Someone dropped by to visit him. It was Kathleen Janowski. She handed him some very interesting photographs. It brought up a very disturbing possibility. A White House cabinet member might have been shot. And the military was blocking any serious investigation into that possibility.

In a very dramatic way, Cogswell used those photographs in his training session with FBI agents. "This is what not to do. When you see a hole like this, you must perform an autopsy." God only knows how many liberal reporters were tipped off about those photographs, but it was kept quiet for a long time. Then finally, one agent got smart and tipped off the right journalist, Chris Ruddy. Ruddy got copies of those photos, went on cable television with those photos, and even posted those photos on the internet. And yet, major news broadcasts deliberately ignore it.

Two other whistle blowers, forensics specialists Col. David Hause and Major Thomas Parsons, stepped forward publicly about this. The military misquoted them to the Washington Post. Despite the four whistle blowers' objections, the Washington Post never retracted the deliberate misquote. And this is the official reason why the story was declared 'dead', based on lies. Even now, over 5 years later, the whistle blowers step forward to make it clear they were misquoted. Many talk radio listeners heard these whistle blowers with their own ears. But the story is still dead because the Washington Post and the miltary say its dead.

And one should not be surprised to hear that the military outed those whistle blowers. They first tried threats. Janowski was threatened with the death penalty. But that failed. So then the military began to discipline them over speeding in parking lots, for failing to have a cooperative attitude, etc. Their careers are over. But they stood firmly behind their words.

Rome fell when the military was used as a political tool of ambitious leaders. Ultimately, civil wars resulted from political disputes. The senate of Rome concluded that to avoid future civil wars, and also to prevent their own assassinations, they must elect the military head as being Emperor [first known as 'impurator', which means head of military], and to simply let him have his way in ruling Rome as a permanent dictator.

The word is getting out in the military that it doesn't matter if a high level politician is killed, you best follow orders. This is a dangerous message. Such orders are highly unlawful. It will take a long time, but if no one is ever punished for destroying the careers of these four whistle blowers, then we are slowly grinding down the same path as Rome. 35 PEOPLE DIED ON THAT PLANE. And the military is covering up a serious investigation of the crash.

It's very easy. All you have to do is try to find two people this month to help spread the word about this coverup. Don't say that Brown was shot. Just say that Brown should have an autopsy and the people who wrecked those whistle blowers' careers must be court martialed.

Clinton's involement. Clinton is tangled up comepletely in this coverup. I mean it when I say, revealing this will expose what kind of person Clinton really is, and why so many people are so motivated to expose Clinton and his political party. He and his DNC flunkies are evil. No joke. The average DNC voter has no idea what he or she is supporting. When they find out, our nation is set free. If they never find out, shame on us. Very little effort is needed to expose this coverup by word of mouth.

When was he shot?

Who paid Judicial Watch to drop the case?

Fine Bayourod. Since you want to involve yourself in this thread, let's have at it. Let's start with a little history. You and I have exchanged posts about the Brown case on several occasions. I first listed upwards of 50 incriminating items (facts) that strongly suggest Brown was murdered to keep him from testifying about Chinagate and challenged others to debate them. You like almost everyone would NOT.

The fact is that you simply would not discuss specifics. Instead, you employed democRAT debating techniques: adhominim attacks, demeaning the intelligence of the messenger, implying the sources (like Ruddy) are unreliable without specifically saying why and trying to link interest in Brown to other, less credible, conspiracy theories. The closest you came to actually discussing specific evidence was when I challenged you to answer a small number of questions having to do with the Brown case. One of those question was the following:

"1) Name one pathologist ... just ONE ... (other than the head of the AFIP, Colonel Dickerson, because he is directly implicated in the coverup) who has publically stated that the wound in the top of Brown's head is not suspicious. What's the problem? Can't come up with even one name? Well, I can name half a dozen of the top pathologists in the nation who publically state that the x-ray and photographic evidence suggests a bullet wound. That list now includes ALL of the pathologists who actually viewed the body at Dover (Colonel Hause and Colonel Gormley) as well as some of the most experienced pathologists (when it comes to bullet wounds) in the Air Force (Colonel Cogswell, Major Parsons). Dr. Martin Fackler (former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory) and Dr. Cyril Wecht (one of the top civilian forensic pathologists) are also adament that what they see in the x-rays and photos looks like a bullet wound."

Now your response to this question (and everyone note that you only responded to this question although the others were just as significant) was to say

"you could go a long way in convincing me if instead of listing six pathologists you would simply post or link to just one actual copy of a report by one of these pathologist saying that he has examined the body and in his best medical opinion Ron Brown died from a gunshot wound to the head."

I responded as follows:

**********

I have posted my sources for the summary I made of the Brown case several times. Most of the material, especially that having to do with the events at AFIP, came from a number of articles by Christopher Ruddy. As far as I know, the official report by the AFIP is not available. Everything having to do with the Brown case is under lock and key at AFIP. According to Klayman, who is representing at least one of the pathologists, the AFIP went so far as to search the residences of several pathologists and seize anything having to do with the Brown case. Fortunately, it was already too late to keep the first set of photos and x-rays from the public. Fortunately, the government has not been able to silence the pathologists either.

The "official" report must state that death was due to blunt force injuries since that is what Colonel Gormley, the examining officer, apparently said was the cause of death during an interview on Black Entertainment Television and what Dickerson, the head of AFIP, told a very liberal newspaper in an article. Does the fact that Gormley was the "official" examining officer make him more believable than the others? Remember, Gormley was caught on BET during that same interview lying about the evidence and (per Klayman) now says that a bullet could have caused the wound and an autopsy should have been performed. The head of AFIP lied when he claimed ALL the pathologists at AFIP agree with the "official" conclusion. Quotes from three who do not agree are contained in the Ruddy articles.

So what is the real problem? Do you question the quotes that Ruddy says those individuals made? For example, Hause, who went over to look at the wound, is quoted as remembering that he said "sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too." Do you not believe this? If so, then do you have evidence that Ruddy has made up quotes in other articles? What is the basis on which you discount Ruddy's articles? One detractor on this forum attacked Ruddy by suggesting that some of the people named by him and Klayman might not exist. Are you that desperate or will you agree that the people exist ... and that Ruddy probably has quoted them accurately? I suppose perhaps Klayman's depositions of the parties contain statements by the pathologists. Do you know a way to get a hold of those? Klayman said during a radio interview that I actually heard that he's talked to the individuals and that they say what Ruddy said they said.

What I do know is that if you question the veracity of Ruddy's quotes, then you must explain why Ruddy's facts are totally cooberated by what Janoski has said during several radio interviews which had nothing to do with Ruddy or Klayman? Or are you suggesting it is a far larger "conspiracy"? To get who? The bottom line is that you are being unreasonable in what you demand before taking this case seriously. The sources for the material in my summary have been posted numerous times: articles by Ruddy and few others that you can go read at Newsmax or WorldNetDaily. They seem quite legitimate. If you have a problem with those sources ... then have at it. Show where they are in error. NOONE so far has done so ... or even attempted to do so. The facts as related by Ruddy are ALL in agreement with what Janoski has said during interviews with others and, more recently, what Klayman says he's been told by the people involved. I've heard Klayman on talk shows talking about the case and coorberating the facts as Ruddy laid them out. Are you going to suggest that Klayman is lying in this case? If not, then unless you want to suggest that the various military personnel are lying, you MUST take the report at face value and NOT dismiss the allegation out of hand.

********

Note that at this point in the above discussion you just disappeared ... like a democRAT does when faced with facts.

Somewhat more recently (in a thread also discussing Klayman), you did the same thing. You chimed in "And when I ask to see a copy of a report by any pathologist who examined the body saying that in their opinion the cause of death was a bullet wound to the head you do a song and dance.

Now my response to you WAS as follows and IS just as appropriate NOW.

*************

I did no such thing. I told you that EVERYTHING OFFICIAL having to do with the Brown case is under lock and key at the AFIP. They won't even comment on the case other than to say that it is the UNAMINOUS conclusion of the AFIP pathologists that Brown died by blunt force injury. THAT is a clear lie since we have statements in several newspaper interviews with the pathologists at AFIP (in fact, all the ones who saw Brown's body or had expertise in gunshot) that the wound looked like a bullet wound and that there SHOULD HAVE BEEN AN AUTOPSY. I provided you URLS to all of those newspaper articles as well as an interview with Kathleen Janoski, the photographer at AFIP who took pictures of Brown and the x-rays that the government destroyed). She cooberated that those statements were made by the pathologists. Klayman has testimony from the pathologists. People need to realize that what you are suggesting is that ALL of those MILITARY OFFICERS have lied UNDER OATH. What people need to realize is that you provided NO basis to challenge the facts in the interviews with those people. Distorting the facts is what we've come to expect from democRATS trying to hide their crimes. Are you a democRAT?

You also fail to mention I've provided dozens of other facts about the case that you refuse to even discuss. For example, Klayman (who you are trying to discredit) discovered an official timeline provided to Warren Christopher that states there were TWO survivors to the crash when the government has NEVER mentioned more than one. Or how about this fact ... this was the ONLY crash in US Air Force history not to have a post crash safety investigation to determine the cause of the crash (other than the friendly fire shoot down of the helicopters in IRAQ). It was RULED pilot error without one. Or how about this ... Klayman has testimony from Gormley (who initially lied about the nature of the wound but now admits it looked like a bullet wound and there should have been an autopsy) that he was ORDERED by the Whitehouse and JCS not to autopsy Brown, even though the law requires it when pathologists are suspicious of a gunshot (and that suspicion WAS voiced during the examination according to sworn testimony). Why are you running from the facts ... if you are not a democRAT?

*************

And guess what? You AGAIN didn't respond. You simply ran as democRATS usually do when faced with undeniable facts.

So now tell us ... did you check out Janoski's interview or not? If so, are you suggesting she is lying? If so, what is her motive? If so, why have none of the officers that she quotes disputed her? What is it about this body of evidence that you don't understand? Why are you afraid of even seeking the truth? If nothing happened, then there will be no harm done. In fact, get Ashcroft to provide a reasonable explanation to the questions I posed ... an explanation that shows no crime occurred ... and I'll be glad to drop this matter. But until then ... NO EXCUSES.

By the way, you posted to me previously the following:

Your only objective is to derail every Judicial Watch thread. If you were really interested in discussing Ron Brown's death you would start a thread on it and present you evidence in an orderly manner.

Isn't is interesting to find you here on a thread SPECIFICALLY about Brown, posting about Judicial Watch. Why don't you debate the pathologist statements and the photographs that seem to cooberate the view that Brown should of been autopsied. Trying to DERAIL this thread?

Very interesting. I had heard about this, but had never seen the photos before. I found em through a link posted in this thread.

I did something real simple which I'm sure a lot smarter people have done before me, which anyone with a ruler can do - I actually took the time to measure the size of the hole against the ruler in the photo.

I tried it in 2 different directions, and I got the following results: about 6.5 sixteenths and about 6.6 sixteenths of an inch.

So a quick poke at the calculator gave me a rough size for the hole of between .406 inch and .413 inch.

Or, when I converted that to millimeters, that would make the hole roughly between 10.3 millimeters and 10.5 millimeters.

I found a place on the web where it says a bullet hole can be a little bit larger or smaller than the actual caliber. I also found one of the actual experts talking about this case, who had said the hole didn't look like a hole from a .45, but more like from a .40 caliber or a 10mm gun.

So then I looked out on the web for some info about these calibers and I found a couple of interesting tidbits -

"During 1990, the 10mm Auto gained even more credibility as a self defense cartridge when the FBI abandoned the 9mm Parabellum and officially adopted the larger caliber. Other law enforcement agencies are sure to follow suit."

And more recently: "All FBI agents are issued service weapons upon graduation from the FBI academy at Quantico, Va. -- currently Glock .40-caliber semiautomatic pistols -- and many agents have several weapons issued to them, officials said."

Obviously, 10 mm and .40 caliber are real close in size. I don't know what other agencies might use one or the other of these calibers, but it's obvious that guns that fire bullets the size of the hole in Ron Brown's head are used by some agencies of the U.S. government.

All of which leads us right back to suspecting what we already suspected - that the hole was not likely made by a flying umbrella.

So will we ever find out the complete story? It would be nice, but my guess is, probably about as much as we know the whole story on Kennedy.

I respect your opinion. Sounds a lot like most of my elders. So I had plenty of time to think over their belief. My first dissent is that I am not a "Starr-Gazer" who is trying to pressure one individual and hitch all my hopes in one "Starr". People keep morphing political opinion into a court room. Justice would be sweet, but not necessary to save our country. What I am looking for is to bring discomfort to those who destroyed the whistle blowers' careers. Those who destroyed those careers, whether directly or indirectly, are doing this nation tremendous harm. The more that people learn about this, the more uncomfortable they will feel. It will let people know that this is unacceptable.

On the other hand, if this winds down to nothing, no objections, no rise in the outrage level, then the the course is set toward dictatorship.

Now for my second dissent. I don't think you fully understand what is going on in their heads. Machievelli helps explain some of the thought processes. According to Machievelli, severe punishments of former leaders will, in time, trigger desperation in failing leaders. That would ultimately destroy a republic. The leaders of this nation are applying that philosophy in a very extreme way, probably because of the FBI files.

Once public pressure builds, something will give. I don't know how for certain. It might be Bush or Ashcroft, who would be pressured into recalculating their plans. Or it might be a new history book that starts a chain reaction. Who knows? It could be some third party candidate who says it like it is, gets assassinated or illegally has his FBI file exposed, and gets massive public sympathy. It might be a new impeachment vote in the House, shot down in Senate, and then massive protests against Daschle. Or, perhaps this results in more history books that shift public opinion .2 percent and add to the credibility of the other history books that expose Clinton. Or perhaps BET is pressured into interviewing Chris Ruddy and Alan Keyes and this starts up all over again. Or some new, intrepid internet TV station becomes popular and runs it. Who knows what the future in media is? No one knows for certain. Free Republic TV could one day be a highly influential program.

Thus some of us need to keep this torch burning. Others need to keep other torches burning. So, please bear in mind that when you seek to advise someone that there's no point in fighting for Truth, you become part of the problem. Freegards....

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.