Replies

The effectiveness of argument does not increase with repetition. Your verborrhea proves nothing other than you are the undisputed SPAM KING of Ron Brown obsessive-compulsiveness.

The effectiveness of YOUR side of this discussion doesn't increase by demonstrating OVER AND OVER that you will not discuss the FACTS in the case. Your effectiveness isn't increased by demonstrating that your side is willing to DISTORT and outright LIE about the facts (case in point ... your BOGUS statements about the photographer and pathologists and what the did or saw). Your effectiveness is NOT increased by demonstrating that you argue like a democRAT ... impuning the other side rather than EVER, EVER addressing the FACTS that they cite ... just to protect democRATS from serious accusations.

Let's just make this easy. What are the names of the two pathologists you CLAIM examined the body and found no bullet or exit wound. I've named every one of the pathologists I know of who is involved in this case and provided QUOTES by them contrary to your claim. Let's just demonstrate how BOGUS your defense of the Clinton administration really is so that our readers can decide who to believe.

You may be too dense to notice, but others who followed our "debate," can see that I provided sources and documentation for my statements. I even gave you the link to the Air Force, Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation Safety Board investigation into the crash.

LOL! Name the two pathologists you mentioned in your post. I bet you can't even do that. And while you are at it, why don't you FINALLY address the many questions I have raised REPEATEDLY regarding this report. For example, does it mention the FACT that the words BULLET WOUND were voiced BY PATHOLOGISTS at the examination ... or that pathologists at the examination recommended an autopsy but were refused because the WHITEHOUSE and JCS said no? It doesn't does it? Yet, this report is supposed to be used by lawyers in any lawsuits that result. You would think they would want such information.

Does it mention the suspicious loss of transponder signal and voice contact ... or the missing beacon ... or the dead chief maintenance officer in charge of that beacon? Does it mention the FACT that Abe Sockowitz reported that there were TWO survivors ... not just one? The answer is always no, isn't it.

You can't hide behind a BOGUS report put out by the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION as your defense. That just PROVES you are a democRAT ... or worse, someone in the current administration ... who doesn't want this case examined. Why aren't you honest? Why didn't you tell the people reading this thread that this "report" you mention is the product of an Air Force Accident Investigation Board, which is normally (actually in EVERY instance in the past except a friendly fire shoot down) PRECEEDED by a Air Force SAFETY BOARD. Why did they SKIP the Safety Board IN THIS ONE CASE when that portion of the NORMAL Air Force investigation process is the one SPECIFICALLY charged with "FINDING the CAUSE" of the crash? Just one more suspicious fact that you refuse to address, Wallace.

You, however, ignored the evidence and provided nothing to support your farrago of absurd allegations. When I asked you for your sources, you acted like this was the most unreasonable request in the world.

You are a demonstrable LIAR ... just like VA Advogado (we know) ... just like Luis Gonzalez (it now seems). No wonder the three of you get along so well and all seem to show up to support one another at various times. You seem to forget that the internet has a memory. Here is the proof that you are a LIAR. The following is from the thread titled "Judicial Watch files lawsuit against Osama bin Laden and Iraq" in December. OUR discussion on this subject began when I posted the following to Howlin in response to a post by her mentioning me.

******* begin excerpt from previous thread ******

To: Howlin

As to BAC, it's way past time we ALL stopped replying to him. His ridiculous statements about JW and us aren't worth the time to read, much less reply to.

Yet you'll cheerfully and happily reply to VA Advogado ... a PROVEN LIAR.

Yet you STILL won't tell us why you decided that Ron Brown was not murdered. Still RUNNING.

posted on 12/5/01 11:09 AM Pacific by BeAChooser

******** end excerpt from previous thread ******

You, Wallace, decided to respond for her. Here is what you wrote:

***** begin excerpt from previous thread ******

To: BeAChooser

Yet you STILL won't tell us why you decided that Ron Brown was not murdered. Still RUNNING.

Because he was in a plane crash in which there were no survivors. Just a thought.

You want Howlin to prove that he WASN'T murdered. You can't prove a negative. The burden is on you to prove that he was murdered.

So what's YOUR theory?

(1) Clinton somehow learned that Brown was going to rat on him to save his own neck? Where's the evidence for that?

(2) Did Clinton order the pilot to crash the plane or was that a lucky break for him? But somehow Ron Brown survived the plane crash, so Clinton dispatched a hit team to finish him off? Is that what happened?

(3) Did he send a second hit team to dispatch the first hit team in case one of those guys talked? But wait, what if the second team talked?

I'm all ears.

posted on 12/5/01 12:20 PM Pacific by William Wallace

********* end excerpt from previous thread *****

My response to you was as follows:

***** begin excerpt from previous thread ******

To: William Wallace

Ahhh ... so you are going to step in tell us why Howlin doesn't believe Ron Brown was murdered. What gives you insight into what SHE believes?

Because he was in a plane crash in which there were no survivors. Just a thought.

DISINFORMATION. In fact, there were ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT two survivors OF THE CRASH. One was the stewardess that the government admitted too. After surviving the crash and many hours on the ground, she died in route to the hospital under a doctor's care. And curiously enough, they cremated her body BEFORE even notifying her relatives that she had died. That, by the way, is a violation of Air Force regulations. The government has never admitted to more than the one survivor but (guess who) Klayman, via a FOIA request, discovered a confidential timeline given to Warren Christopher, then Secretary of State, which has an entry from Abe Sockowitz (good friend of Johnny Huang, Chinese spy) from the crash site which states there were TWO survivors. And just after that information arrived at State, they shut down all access to the crash site by reporters.

You want Howlin to prove that he WASN'T murdered. You can't prove a negative. The burden is on you to prove that he was murdered.

I don't want Howlin to PROVE he wasn't murdered. I want her to say why she BELIEVES he wasn't murdered. Many times I've posted to Howlin the material I'm about to post to you. NOT ONCE has Howlin offered ANYTHING to dispute a single item in the list. NOT ONCE.

A while back, I asked Howlin if she had ever posted that she doesn't believe Ron Brown was murdered. She responded NO, trying to give the "conservative" impression to those who were following that thread that she does believe he was murdered. Then I proved she was lying by posting a statement she made in an earlier thread where she stated quite clearly that she did NOT believe he was murdered. All I'm asking her to do is explain why she believes that, given that she won't challenge a SINGLE item I've listed in the case (which I'm about to supply you).

I'm all ears.

Let's see if you really are or if you are going to RUN like ALL the other "move-on'ers" have done when faced with this list. Read the next post from me. Visit the sources to confirm that I'm not "making this up". Then dispute ANY items in the post, IF YOU CAN. Pay particular attention to the opinions of the photographer and pathologists at AFIP and elsewhere who state that the wound looked like a bullet wound and that Brown should have been autopsied. Address the photo and x-ray evidence that seems to cooberate that opinion. Explain the LIES of AFIP management with regards to the opinions of their staff and the nature of the evidence. Explain why the Air Force skipped the Safety Board and why the AIB report doesn't even mention the opinions of it experts at AFIP or the evidence suggesting a bullet wound. Explain why the Air Force report doesn't mention the loss of transponder signal when the plane was still 8 miles from the crash site. Explain why the Air Force NEVER told the families of the victims about the pathologist opinions or the x-ray suggesting a bullet ... but instead just destroyed their careers? Explain ANYTHING ... if you dare.

posted on 12/5/01 4:34 PM Pacific by BeAChooser

********* end excerpt from previous thread ******

And here is how my post on the information I promised began:

****** begin excerpt from previous thread *******

To: William Wallace

PART I

Below are some of the incriminating facts in the Ron Brown case. Keep in mind that this body of information was collected WITHOUT there being an investigation by law enforcement organizations into the possibility of a mass murder. Despite that, I think these facts inexorably lead any fair-minded person to the conclusion that Ron Brown, Clinton's former Secretary Of Commerce, and 34 others on a flight to Croatia on April 3, 1996, were murdered and that the Clinton Administration, with help from certain people in the military, Department Of Justice and the media, covered it up.

********* SOURCES *********

Some of the sources used in creating the list of items below are:

"Questions Linger About Ron Brown Plane Crash" By Christopher Ruddy and Hugh Sprunt FOR PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, November 24, 1997

"Experts Differ on Ron Brown's Head Wound" By Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 3, 1997

"Military Imposes Gag Order in Ron Brown Controversy" By Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 6, 1997

"Second Expert: Brown's Wound Appeared to be From Gunshot" By Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 9, 1997

"Brown Death Case: Gag Order Broadened" By Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 11, 1997

"Top Pathologist: Autopsy Needed in Possible Homicide of Ron Brown" By Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 17, 1997

"Pathologists Dispute Military Claims in Brown Probe" By Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, January 11, 1998

"4th Expert Claims Probe of Brown's Death Botched" By Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, January 13, 1998

"Ron Brown's Death Still A Mystery" by Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy In Media, February 24, 1999.

"A Shocking Analysis Of A Deadly Crash" by Reed Irvine, Accuracy In Media, March 5, 1999.

"The Confidential Commerce Department Chronology Of Ron Brown's Death", www.NewsMax.com, October 8, 1999.

You can see the photos of the headwound, crash site and xrays at www.Newsmax.com. The Air Force has acknowledged that they are authentic.

A number of Judicial Watch briefs that were filed by Klayman on behalf of the AFIP personnel that were punished for revealing what happened at the Brown examination. Interviews given by Klayman about these briefs.

"The Botched Ron Brown Investigation: An Interview with AFIP Forensic Photographer Kathleen Janoski", by Wesley Phelan, Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 2, No 35, October 26, 1998.

"KATHLEEN JANOSKI DESCRIBES COVER-UP IN RON BROWN INVESTIGATION" by Carl Limbacher, Washington Post, April 26, 1998. (transcript of Janoski interview on The Bob Grant Show, a New York talk radio program by the WOR Radio Network)

"The Secret Files Of Ron Brown" by Charles Smith, WorldNetDaily, September 27, 2000.

"The Ron Brown Stonewall: Prominent African Americans Grow Impatient" by Carl Limbacher, The Washington Weekly, January 5, 1998.

Numerous other newspaper articles published on www.freerepublic.com.

******* end excerpt from previous thread *********

I then went on to list about 50 very incriminating groups of facts ... a few of which I've mentioned in this thread so far ... ALL of which you have consistently RUN from. Now instead of addressing those groups of facts, in other words, dealing with the contents of the sources, you wrote this:

**** begin excerpt from previous thread *****

I asked you specific questions about Ron Brown's death and the supposed murder/cover-up you claim occurred. Instead of answering my questions, you spammed the thread with a 6,573 word screed that you've previously posted on umpteen threads. Even though you didn't answer my questions,

********* end excerpt from previous thread *******

My response was this:

******* begin excerpt from previous thread ********

Based on your questions, I guess I assumed that you were not very knowledgeable about the Brown case and that we needed a broader overview before getting down to the nuts and bolts of specific questions. I also choose not to let you "move-on'ers" control the debate by selectively ignoring some of the most telling information. Look back through my posts over numerous threads and you will find that I always answer questions that are asked of me ... unlike almost all of the "move-on'ers". In fact, you are the FIRST to actually respond by trying to challenge specific information, except in VERY narrow cases. I appreciate that you have and am hopeful that we might actually have a reasonable discussion.

****** end excerpt from previous thread *******

After that I addressed each of your three questions. Now show the readers in any of this where you asked for sources or where I gave the impression that providing them was "the most unreasonable request in the world"? You can't.

All of which makes you ... A LIAR. Your stated version of our exchange is completely FALSE. You never really asked me to post my sources. And when I posted them along with my detailed list of 50 incriminating items I did so WITHOUT acting like it was the "most unreasonable request in the world" AS YOU NOW CLAIM. That alone should make people very suspicious about you AND your agenda.

Now in that previous exchange we then went back in forth a few times until a final post by me on that thread ... one which you never responded to. You RAN, as people that ACT like democRATS usually do when faced with facts they can't dispute. The following is an excerpt from that thread ending post by me (the quote I'm answering of yours is in italics):

********** begin excerpt from previous thread *******

(2) Your "sources" are mostly Chris Ruddy and Newsmax. These are not reliable sources IMO. No links to the articles are given, and I'm not about to pay $2.50 (or whatever) per article to dig the Ruddy articles out of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Archives for Ruddy's articles about Ron Brown.

EVERY ONE of the cited articles is available if you are OPEN MINDED ENOUGH to spend 10 minutes using your WEB BROWSER. They are ALL available on the internet (and more besides). Furthermore, not only Ruddy but several other individuals (such as Wesley Phelan, Bob Grant, Alan Keyes, Klayman) reported details of this story. Now you may not like Ruddy, Newsmax or those other journalists but they are DEMONSTRABLY more reliable where Clinton and the DNC are concerned than ANY mainstream source you can name. Do you realize that the LA TIMES, NY TIMES, ABC, NBC and all the other mainstream news sources (which perhaps YOU find credible) NEVER even reported the fact that Sid Blumenthal was caught lying under oath in an impeachment trial about lying under oath. And the stakes in that case were a lot less than the stakes in the Brown matter. In fact, I challenge you to name ANY mainstream source (or WHATEVER you view as a RELIABLE source ... I'd be interested in knowing what that is) that EVER mentioned the FACT that the pathologists in the Brown case stated that Brown appeared to be shot, that an autopsy should have been done, the proven LIES of the AFIP management, and the disappearance of the photos and x-rays from a locked safe at AFIP. I challenge you to name ANY other so-called reliable source (in your opinion) that even MENTIONED that the discovery of a document indicating there were 2 survivors, the missing beacon, the loss of transponder signal or any of a dozen other incriminating FACTS. Unless you can do this I'd have to wonder about the RELIABILITY of YOUR sources.

***** end excerpt from previous thread *******

Now here is a question. Did you EVER go look at those FREE articles or are you STILL talking without knowing the FACTS? If you did read them, then maybe you can FINALLY address some of the points I made in that post. Or perhaps you would like to simply answer the question I asked about your sources in the above excerpt?

Now, returning to the rest of your CURRENT statements:

When pressed, you listed a series of articles by Chris Ruddy, which are long on outlandish conspiracy scenarios and short on facts.

Again (see my comments in my thread ending post above), you distort the truth (how very much like a democRAT). In addition to articles by Ruddy (who you impune without showing ANY BASIS WHATSOEVER, then or now, for disbelieving his articles in this matter), there were other sources named. For example, Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy In Media, Wesley Phelan of Laissez Faire City Times, Carl Limbacher in the Washington Post and Washington Weekly, Charles Smith of WorldNetDaily, Judicial Watch briefs filed on behalf of the whistleblowers, several interviews by Kathleen Janosk (the photographer), and various others. All you telling us they are ALL LIARS? Tell us, what do YOU consider good sources of information ... the LA Times? ABC? CBS? I think we deserve an answer if you want to continue to CLAIM to be a conservative. Where do you get your news?

Your uncritical regurgitation of fantasy works from discredited conspiracy theorists does not rise to the level of serious debate, much less a refutation of well-documented factual information.

UNBELIEVABLE. I'll debate ANY FACT you want to name. You are the one being "uncritical" ... simply BELIEVING the "official" report of the Clinton Administration. You are RUNNING from the pathologists and the x-rays just like ALL your buddies, using the same tired old democRAT debating techniques that ALL the "MOVE-ON'ERS" seem to do nowdays. If you can discredit what Ruddy published in those articles then do so ... BE SPECIFIC ... otherwise you prove your own dishonesty with such statements. The fact is that neither the government nor ANYONE ELSE has disputed ANY of the FACTS cited in Ruddy's articles. In fact, several of the whistleblowers (MILITARY OFFICERS) have made PUBLIC statements in various forums that had nothing to do with Ruddy that cooberate EVERYTHING he wrote in those articles. YOU ARE DISHONEST. YOU ARE A LIAR.

Your purported refutation of the official evidence and supporting documentation is tantamount to trying to refute Robert Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich using sound clips from Colonel Klink of Hogan's Heroes.

And dishonest people ALWAYS end up RUNNING from the facts and resorting to what THEY THINK are clever witticisms to try and distract attention for the facts.

Here on FR, the term "sheeple" is used to describe people who uncritically accept whatever story the government or the mainstream media endlessly repeats, no matter how implausible. What term should we use to describe someone like you who uncritically believes whatever preposterous conspiracy theories professional malcontents endlessly repeat?

Still RUNNING I see. Still can't explain the pathologists or any of a HUNDRED other facts in this death. Thank you for showing up to convince a few more that there IS something foul in the death of Ron Brown and the subsequent investigation. One correction ... My side of this "story" isn't coming from the government or the mainstream media. YOUR side of the story is ... so it looks like your a "sheeple" BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION.

And speaking of lies, aren't you the one who keeps referring to me and Luis Gonzalez as "DemocRATs"?

Well as I've done here, I can show that you two argue like democRATS. You RUN from facts, use foul language, rely on adhominen attacks, resort to deflection, put forth disinformation and, sometimes, outright LIE. You also seem to be defending democRATS (like Clinton) from the indefensible. If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck ...

Since Luis has written a number of articles as the Banana Republican and even a cursory look at my profile page would show that I am a conservative Republican, you have no standing to criticize VAAdvogado for telling things that are "DEMONSTRABLY UNTRUE."

Well, first of all, do you want to CLAIM, like VA Advogado, that Ron Brown was autopsied? THAT is a DEMONSTRABLE LIE. I'm more than willing to prove it AGAIN. He keeps repeating it despite being shown that it isn't true. He is OBVIOUSLY doing it to try and stop people from taking another look at the Brown case. That is why he ALWAYS shows up to support the likes of you, Luis Gonzalez, Howlin ... all of whom claim Brown wasn't murdered. That is a funny thing for someone who SAID he believed Ron Brown was murdered to do, isn't it. Was he was LYING about that too?

As for yours and Gonzalez's credentials, so what. It is BEHAVIOR that counts. I have long maintained that certain people on this website are stealth democRATS whose only purpose is to make sure that investigations into the serious crimes of the democRATS the last nine years get no traction. It doesn't matter if those people SOUND like conservatives as long as on the IMPORTANT issues, the ones that could put democRATS in JAIL, go nowhere. If you are a conservative, then that is even more disturbing because in many ways you and your friends are acting no different then democRATS acted the last 9 years.

Incidentally, everyone else figured out long ago that VA is simply yanking your chain.

Oh Really? Well if you guys think he is just being "funny" in claiming that Brown was autopsied (and he by the way first said this not to me but to someone else), in a case where provings Brown's murder (by simply exhuming and autopsying the body) could SERIOUSLY damage democRATS and liberalism, then you are a "funny" group of conservatives. Most of us actually take the crimes that the democRATS committed seriously. You guys must think those accusations are really all a joke. How much like a democRAT.