Jump to content

Snopes under greater attack by rightwing trolls


Recommended Posts

For Fact-Checking Website Snopes, a Bigger Role Brings More Attacks http://nyti.ms/2hlC89U


Facebook has enlisted snopes for fact checking news, and the attacks by the right have correspondingly increased. Look for them on this forum.


For instance, the site's founder is getting attacked for having a rap sheet longer than Al Capone's (completely false).


Keep up the good fight, snopes! It is obvious that you are damaging the central nervous system of the Trumpkin movement, so the snake is fighting back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For Fact-Checking Website Snopes, a Bigger Role Brings More Attacks http://nyti.ms/2hlC89U

Facebook has enlisted snopes for fact checking news, and the attacks by the right have correspondingly increased. Look for them on this forum.

For instance, the site's founder is getting attacked for having a rap sheet longer than Al Capone's (completely false).

Keep up the good fight, snopes! It is obvious that you are damaging the central nervous system of the Trumpkin movement, so the snake is fighting back.

Good. Snopes is nothing more than another leftwing hack site. Fuck them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Facebook has enlisted snopes for fact checking news, and the attacks by the right have correspondingly increased. Look for them on this forum.

Thats like letting the town drunk be the night watchman at the local brewery.


They set up a go fund me because the prep set his motorcycle on fire to.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

CNN)Blaming racism for a lost election is nothing new for some on the left. The tea party wave in 2010 was ascribed to racism, even as Republicans captured Senate seats in a number of states President Obama won. And President Obama's re-election in 2012 didn't stop Democrats from blaming racism for their defeat two years later. So it's no surprise that as the results came in for Donald Trump, charges of racism followed. CNN contributor Van Jones called Trump's victory a "whitelash," while CNN's Fareed Zakaria argued racism was a pillar of Trump's electoral success.

But although some Democrats have seldom faced a defeat they couldn't attribute to the personal failings of the voters, the 2016 election may be unique to the extent in which the left weaponized charges of racism. In 2016, in their view, racism wasn't just an amorphous problem, but an inherent flaw in the American body politic that prevented liberal politicians from marching to victory. The left alleged that the candidate himself was a racist, leveling the same charge against his advisers and campaign staff. Hillary Clinton's infamous "basket of deplorables" speech labeled half of Trump's supporters — more than 30 million Americans — as "irredeemable" racists.
That Trump won states and voters that had twice gone to President Obama hasn't stopped Democrats from doubling down. As Trump has laid out his Cabinet, new charges of racism have emerged, with little evidence to support them.
Steve Bannon was deemed a white nationalist and an anti-Semite based on disputed allegations made by his ex-wife during divorce proceedings and the content and comments found on Breitbart, the far-right website he was executive chairman of before working for the Trump campaign.
Democrats attacked Gen. Michael Flynn, calling him a racist and an Islamophobe after taking his comments -- which stated that he believes radical Islamic terrorism is an existential threat to America -- out of context. Similar allegations focused on crying Islamophobe have also been made against Rep. Mike Pompeo in the days after Trump's announcement that he intends to name him director of the CIA.
But few have endured the kind of personal attacks Sen. Jeff Sessions has faced since Trump announced his plans to nominate him to be our nation's next attorney general.
Sessions, a senator for 20 years, former Alabama attorney general, and United States attorney for the Southern District of Alabama during the Reagan administration, would seem to be the perfect nominee. But Sessions is also a vocal opponent of amnesty for illegal immigrants, a position that is anathema to the progressive movement.
Sessions' opponents immediately raised the specter of racism to oppose him, and the press played along. Chris Cuomo asked Kellyanne Conway on CNN's "New Day" whether Sessions was a racist. Others were less circumspect. Salon referred to Sessions and Trump as "two peas in a racist pod," while Slate lamented that "Jeff Sessions' racism sadly doesn't matter." Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts called stopping Sessions' nomination "a moral question."
One might expect that those leveling these charges against a distinguished US senator would have powerful evidence. But you'd be wrong. Instead, Sessions' name has been dragged through the mud on the basis of 30-year-old accusations of racism made after his 1986 nomination for a federal district judgeship. These charges consisted of largely unsubstantiated, half-remembered statements from private conversations. DOJ lawyers, including one of the witnesses whose statements were used against Sessions, testified that Sessions was not only not a racist, but had doggedly pursued civil rights cases even when they were unpopular.
But it didn't matter. It was one of the first times the race card was played, and it worked. Sessions was blindsided by the allegations, and his nomination failed in committee.
But even if these accusations of racism — which Sessions has long disputed — were fair game in 1986, it borders on absurd that they are the basis for opposing Sessions now. Sessions' detractors have presented not a shred of evidence from the past three decades that Sessions is a racist.
Never mind that Sessions pressed for the death penalty against a Ku Klux Klan leader during his time as Alabama attorney general. Never mind that Sessions filled perhaps the most important position in his office, chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary, with an African-American lawyer who worked with him for nearly a decade. Never mind that Sessions voted to confirm Eric Holder, spearheaded an effort to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks, and joined civil rights leaders in Selma to honor the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday.
Either those leveling charges of racism against Sessions don't know these things or they don't care. That's the price of weaponizing racism. It transforms what should be a serious accusation made only on the basis of irrefutable evidence into little more than a tool in the left's political bag of tricks, a way to undermine their opponents with the ultimate smear. The irony is that in using race in this manner, the charge of racism has lost much of its potency. The left has played that card so long on so many people in so many instances that today it is met with little more than an eye roll.
But that the attack usually fails makes it no less contemptible. They may be your political enemies, but they are people, too. One of Sessions' chief antagonists during his 1986 confirmation hearings was then-Republican Sen. Arlen Spector, whose vote helped scuttle Session's nomination. But in his later years, Spector began to regret that decision and all that it implied, calling it the one vote he had made as senator that was a mistake. "I have since found," he remarked candidly, "that Sen. Sessions is an egalitarian."


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with Snopes is that it outright lies when it comes to the Clintons.

Take what it says about the death Ron Brown, for instance.

Below (in bold) is their website's


description for the allegation of foul play in the death of Ron Brown as is stood several years ago.

I contacted them (several times) to make them aware of the following problems with that description:


"Ron Brown - former DNS Chairman, Commerce Secretary. Reported to have died in a plane crash, but new evidence reveals he may have been shot in the head. He was being investigated by a special investigator and was about to be indicted with 54 others. He spoke publicly of his willingness to "make a deal" with the prosecutors to save himself a few days before the fatal trip. He was not supposed to be on the flight but was asked to go at the last minute."


Note that they do not dispute that Brown was about to be indicted, spoke of his willingness to cut a deal with the special prosecutor, and was not supposed to be on the flight but was asked to go at the last minute. That's because they can’t. As to where they got the notion that "54 others" were about to be indicted, I have no idea. But it's not true. But in any case, Ron Brown certainly was indicted on very serious charges. In fact, not only was Brown about to be indicted for a long shopping list of crimes, but his wife and son had already been indicted on some related charges. So his whole family was a risk. But even in that description of the allegation they left out a lot of important details. They didn't mention what Brown was alleged to have done … essentially sell out America for large campaign contributions to Democrats and for personal gain. They didn’t mention who was allegedly involved with him in the various illegal activities (lots and lots of top Democrats). The context in which Brown died is definitely part of this story and should have been more fully summarized if their site is to be considered unbiased in it's presentation. Not only were the charges against Brown already serious, but the Special Prosecutor's investigation was still widening. Only days before his death, another 20 witnesses were subpoenaed in a new case involving large bribes (well over half a million dollars) from a company called Dynamic Energy Resources whose former CEO told a grand jury the money was to "fix" a big lawsuit against the company. The situation was so serious that Brown had just hired a $750 an hour lawyer. And there was sworn testimony by a close Brown confidante that Brown told Bill Clinton face-to-face shortly before he was ordered to be on the ill-fated flight that he was going to turn state's evidence in ChinaGate and CampaignFinanceGate if Clinton didn't stop the investigation. His doing that might have implicated dozens of people (including the Clintons) in addition to the over one hundred people who fled the country related to those scandals. And all of the above facts came from mainstream media articles and sworn testimony by various individuals. So Snopes should have had no trouble finding them out and considering them credible.

And there are other facts that Snopes should have included in it's presentation of the scandal if it wished to be accurate, complete and unbiased. Note that every claim made below can be verified with reliable sources, including radio and television interviews that some of the named whistleblowers made over the years. You may have trouble locating some of the sources now because so much time has elapsed since the scandal broke but enough still exists to verify the following and certainly an organization like Snopes should have no trouble.

The controversy all started at the Armed Forces Institute Of Pathology (AFIP) in Dover where Ron Brown's body was brought after the crash. During the examination of Brown's body by AFIP forensic pathologist Colonel Gormley, Chief Petty Officer Janoski (who was both chief of forensic photography at AFIP and the official photographer in this case) exclaimed in a loud voice, "Gee, this looks like a gunshot wound." As she has stated, what led her to that conclusion is that the wound on top of Brown's head, which is documented in pictures she took that are available on the internet, was "perfectly circular" and "inwardly beveling".

Forensic pathologist Lt. Colonel David Hause, who was considered to be one of the military's leading experts on gunshot wounds at the time, was working on a body two tables away from the one where Brown's body was being examined. When Janoski voiced her comment, he remembers going over to look at the wound and saying "sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too." He said he suggested that Gormley get authority from superiors for an autopsy, or if that was impossible, seek permission from the next of kin. Hause said he did not pursue the issue or investigate further because he assumed Gormley concluded it was not a gunshot after looking at the x-rays.

Lt. Colonel Cogswell, another top forensic pathologist at AFIP, was at the crash site when Brown's body arrived at Dover. He's testified under oath that the wound was described to him over the phone by Colonel Gormley (turns out this was after Brown's body had been embalmed and released for burial). He told Gormley it sounded like a gunshot wound and that Brown needed an autopsy. Gormley ordered Cogswell to search the wreckage for any piece of debris which might explain the wound. Cogswell found nothing that matched the description (even though later an AFIP official would claimed they'd found the cause). Cogswell didn't pursue the matter further because, like Hause, he assumed Gormley had sound reasons to rule it death by blunt force trauma in the official reports.

And that's where matters stood for about six months. Then Janoski, who later signed a sworn statement to the effect, said that she was told by Jeanmarie Sentell, a naval criminal investigator who was at the examination, that x-rays and photographs were deliberately destroyed in the Brown case after a "lead snowstorm" (indicative of gunshot) was discovered in the x-rays. Janoski further testified under oath that Sentell said a second set of X-rays were made "less dense" (to diminish or eradicate the "lead snowstorm" image) and that Colonel Gormley was involved in their creation. When later asked about these accusations by journalists, Sentell declined to comment.

After talking to Sentell, CPO Janoski says she realized that she had taken slide photos of the first set of x-rays while they were displayed on a light table in the examination room. She located the slides and showed them to Colonel Cogswell. After looking at these slides, Cogswell began to publicly state that an autopsy should have been performed. He even included this case in a talk he gave on "mistakes in forensic pathology" at professional conferences and training courses (remember, he was considered a top expert in the field). He told his audiences that the frontal head X-ray shows, in the area behind the left eye socket, "multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density", i.e., a "lead snowstorm" like that you'd see from a gunshot wound. He also told them that brain matter is visible in the photos and that the side X-ray indicates a "bone plug" from the hole that is displaced under the skull and into the brain. Both of these assertions are completely contrary to what Colonel Gormley had claimed about Brown's injuries in official reports; namely, that he couldn't see brain matter in the hole, that the bone plug was only slightly depressed into the brain and the x-rays didn't show any signs of gunshot.

After these facts became known to members of the press, AFIP imposed a gag order on Cogswell, forcing him to refer all press inquiries on the Brown matter to AFIP's public affairs office. Cogswell said he was told he could leave his office only with the permission of Dr. Jerry Spencer, Armed Forces Medical Examiner. He was then escorted to his house by military police, who, without a warrant, seized all of his case materials on the Brown crash.

At that point, Lt. Col. Hause came forward and publically agreed with Cogswell that an autopsy should have been performed. Hause's eyewitness examination also contradicts Gormley's claims. He said "what was immediately below the surface of the hole was just brain. I didn't remember seeing skull". Hause stated that "by any professional standard" Brown should have received an autopsy and that the AFIP's actions against Cogswell was "shooting the messenger."

After Hause talked to the press, the gag order was extended to include all AFIP personnel. They were ordered to turn in "all slides, photos, x-rays and other materials" related to the Brown case. All personnel at the AFIP were prohibited from talking to the press and had to stay at their work stations for the duration of their working day. All personnel, including ranking officers, even had to obtain permission to leave for lunch. But the cat was out of the bag. The photos and the x-ray slides were already in the public domain. Alan Keyes, the spokesman for AFIP at the time, had already acknowledged that the internet photos were authentic. So the controversy grew.

A journalist showed Dr. Martin Fackler, former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory, the photos of the wound and x-rays and asked for his expert opinion. Fackler responded "It's round as hell. ... That's unusual except for a gunshot wound." He also said brain matter was visible in the wound, contradicting Gormley's "official" claim. Similarly, the x-ray and photos were shown to Pittsburgh coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the nation's foremost forensic pathologists. Wecht said "I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied."

The truth is that every single forensic pathologist who has made a public statement with regards to this case (except the head of AFIP, Mr. Dickerson, who can be easily shown to have lied about both the nature of the wound and the opinions of his own staff) has gone on record stating that Brown should have been autopsied based on the suspicious nature of the wound. Even Colonel Gormley, as I'll note next. No wonder there was a still growing controversy.

Leading members of the black community (such as Jesse Jackson Jr.), who had heard about the possibility of a gun shot wound in Brown's head, began to ask for an investigation. So despite the gag order, in a clear attempt at "damage control", Colonel Gormley was allowed to give a live interview on Black Entertainment Television. In the interview, Gormley immediately attacked the other pathologists and regurgitated the official line. He stated that one could rule out a bullet wound because no brain matter was visible in the wound. He also stated that the x-rays taken during the examination showed no trace of a bullet injury. He also denied that two sets of x-rays existed.

But then, on live TV, he was confronted with the photograph taken during the examination by Janoski, which clearly shows brain matter in the wound. He ended up admitting that brain matter was indeed visible, excusing his former statements as a "memory lapse". He then acknowledged that the hole was a "red flag" which should have triggered a further inquiry (i.e., an autopsy). Next he was confronted with copies of Janoski's x-ray slides and he again immediately changed his story. He said that this first set of x-rays had been "lost" so that a second set was required. It was then pointed out that the Janoski x-rays slides show signs of a "lead snowstorm", which he didn't refute during the interview. Only later would he claim the flecks of metallic density near the eyesocket in the frontal x-ray were caused by a defect in the reusable X-ray film cassettes (thus dropping the "lost slides" explanation). But Janoski, an expert on cameras and film, responded that this could not be true since none of the other images from that day showed this so-called defect so the cassette cannot be the cause. All in all the interview was a disaster. The doubts about the case only multiplied.

Another month went by and the Clinton friendly Washington Post, in an effort to help out, reported that AFIP had convened a review panel of all its pathologists, including Cogswell and Hause. The article quoted AFIP's director, Col. Michael Dickerson, in saying that the panel came to the unanimous conclusion that Brown died of blunt-force trauma and not a gunshot. But according to Cogswell, he refused, following the advice of his lawyer, to participate in the review because he thought it would be unfair and biased. So it wasn't unanimous. Dickerson lied. Cogswell said that most of those participating in this review panel were not board-certified in forensic pathology and of those who were, none had significant interest or experience in gunshot wounds. He said that all of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's forensic pathologists with any expertise in gunshot wounds (Cogswell, Hause and a new name ... Air Force Maj. Thomas Parsons) dissented from the "official" opinion. Yet, even though Hause and Parsons soon corroborated Cogswell's statement, AFIP spokesman Chris Kelly continued to state AFIP "stands by" Dickerson's claim that the findings were unanimous ... a clear lie. Now why doesn’t Snopes have any interest in exploring THAT lie, MrKelly?

And in yet another press statement intended to defuse the controversy, AFIP claimed that extensive "forensic tests" disproved a bullet theory. But Chief Petty Officer Janoski said under oath that she was present for the entire examination and did not observe any forensic tests, such as those for gunpowder residue. And the government supplied nothing material to prove there actually were tests of any kind. Next, Janet Reno joined the coverup. She told the nation that the Justice Department conducted a "thorough review" of the facts in the Ron Brown death investigation and concluded that there was no evidence of a crime. But I ask you … how "thorough" could that review have been when no one from the Justice Department or FBI interviewed the military pathologists or military photographer who blew the whistle? Hmmmmm?

Colonel Gormley has since admitted to Judicial Watch that he consulted with other high-ranking pathologists present during the external examination of Ron Brown's body and they agreed that the hole looked like a gunshot wound, "at least an entrance gunshot wound". Furthermore, Gormley confessed that the highest levels in Commerce, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the White House "requested" there be no autopsy. Surely Snopes is aware that cabinet members at the time, such as Ron Brown, were covered by federal laws that deal with assassinations of federal officials and certain acts of terrorism? As such, the matter should have been referred to the FBI as soon as an apparent gunshot wound was discovered. Why doesn't Snopes investigate why that didn't happen? Hmmmmm?

In the end, one event more than any other saved the Clinton administration from seeing this house of cards collapse. The discovery of Monica and the blue dress. Because that story immediately took the pressure off the mainstream media media (MSM) to cover the Brown controversy. Perhaps being supportive of Clinton, the MSM let the matter die and instead devoted all their *journalistic* efforts to Clinton's affair with Monica. Or perhaps they knew that sex will outsell murder any day of the week. Regardless, you'd be hard pressed to find any main stream media source that reported the above facts in the Brown case. Now what should that tell the folks at Snopes, MrKelly?

We should expect more from them. Afterall, they claim to be interested in the truth and not politics. Unfortunately, their treatment of this controversy is even more seriously flawed than simply inadequately describing the facts in the controversy. The Snopes' webpage linked above went on to dismiss the allegations of foul play in the Brown case with the following statements (in bold), presented as if they were proven fact:


"What "new evidence"? Ron Brown and 34 others were killed in a plane crash in Croatia on 3 April 1996. The plane slammed into a mountain while on landing approach. There were no survivors.

A lot has been made of an x-ray of Brown's skull in which what looks like a round entry wound appears. Closer examination of Brown's skull by military officials revealed no bullet, no bone fragments, no metal fragments and, even more telling, no exit wound."


And I have to be blunt … that description is a complete and utter lie (given that it was made long after the following was known) … or it’s indicative of sheer incompetence on their part. Here's the proof.

The statement that "there were no survivors" is false. There were survivors. The government even admitted that. A confidential Commerce Department document was uncovered by Judicial Watch as a result of a Freedom Of Information Act request. That document, an official chronology of events prepared for Secretary of State Warren Christopher only days after the crash, 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." One of the two survivors was identified as Stewardess Sergeant Kelly, who died under somewhat unclear circumstances as she was taken off the mountain from the crash site. As to the identify of the other, curiously the government has never mentioned in any public medium that there was a second survivor and has refused to comment about the timeline statement that Judicial Watch discovered. Why isn’t Snopes curious as to who that second survivor was? Hmmmmm, MrKelly?

The statement about there being "a closer examination of Brown's skull" is misleading. It might lead someone, who knows nothing about the Brown case, to think that pathologists opened up his skull in an autopsy and took a look. But in fact there was no autopsy because Colonel Gormley refused to open up Brown's skull even after other pathologists advised him to do so. So all Gormley had to support his *official* conclusion about there being "no bullet, no bone fragments, no metal fragments" is what he could observe from the outside of the head and via x-rays. And in that regard, was Gormley's description of what he saw accurate? The answer is NO.

Consider the claim that there were "no metal fragments". Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell is on the record stating that in the area near and behind Brown's left eye socket, "there are multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density on X-ray. That's what we might describe as a `lead snowstorm' from a high-velocity gunshot wound." Here is the image (confirmed by AFIP as being authentic) of the frontal skull x-ray of Ron Brown (better ones were once available on the internet but this will do for now):


Look and you can see small white flecks of something on the left side of the head behind and above the eye socket. So for Gormley to have officially stated that there was nothing suspicious in the x-rays is a clear lie.

The previously mentioned Cyril Wecht was shown this image and agreed with Cogswell that the flecks suggest a "lead snowstorm" of fragments left by a disintegrating bullet. After examining the photos of Brown's wound, he also said that the "tiny pieces of dull silver-colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the circular wound itself and near the hole suggest "metallic fragments" as well. He said "little pieces of metal can be found at, or near, an entry site when a bullet enters bone." Note that Wecht also said Brown's body was relatively intact … that lacerations were superficial, and that other damage to his face and body appeared to be caused by chemical burns that probably would not have resulted in death. He said x-rays indicated Brown's bones were generally intact, with a breakage of the pelvic ring that Wecht said was survivable. So perhaps the crash did not kill Brown.

And there was a third expert who said those white flecks in the x-ray could be metal fragments from a bullet … Dr. Martin Fackler. So all in all, the claim that closer examination of the skull showed no metal fragments is simply untrue. It’s a LIE.

As to the claim that there were "no bone fragments", here's the image (again confirmed as authentic) of the wound (better ones were once available on the internet but will this do now):


Note that Gormley stated, in official reports, sworn depositions and early interviews, that his reasons for declaring the death a result of blunt force trauma were that the wound did not penetrate the skull and because the brain was not visible. But that's not what I see in that photo. Nor am I alone in that assessment. For example, Lt. Col. David Hause is on record saying that he personally examined Brown's head wound and that "what was immediately below the surface of the hole was just brain." "I didn't remember seeing skull" in the hole, he said. Hause concluded that the piece of skull "punched out" by the impacting object had displaced into the head. And indeed, if you look at the authenticated side x-ray,you can clearly see a bone plug that is displaced into the head and away from the hole. Again, even a layman can see this. So the Snopes' website claim that closer examination revealed no bone fragments is untrue. It’s a LIE.

Indeed, all of Gormley's original claims are proven false by the above facts. And even Gormley finally admitted that his original reasons for declaring it blunt force trauma were a "mistake". Here's a document that Judicial Watch submitted to a court as an official filing (keep in mind it's a crime for lawyers to submit knowingly false information to a court):

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/ois/cases/other/ronbrown/rbrown.htm "Colonel Gormley has offered inconsistent and changing explanations for his omissions. First, he stated that the wound in Secretary Brown's skull, which he examined after it was pointed out to him by Chief Janoski, was not a bullet wound because it did not penetrate the skull and because the brain was not visible. See Exhibit 15. He has subsequently admitted that a photograph of the wound, as well as photographs of Secretary Brown's X-rays, showed that the skull was penetrated and that Secretary Brown's brain was visible. Transcript of Television Interview with Colonel William Gormley, Black Entertainment Television, December 11, 1997, attached as Exhibit 18 at 18. He also has admitted that the hole in the crown of Ron Brown's head looked like an entrance wound from a gunshot, and that it was a "red flag" for a forensic pathologist which should have triggered a further inquiry. Exhibit 18 at 19. In fact, and even more damning, Colonel Gormley now admits that he consulted with other high-ranking pathologists present during the external examination of Ron Brown's body and they 'agreed that [the hole in his head] look[ed] like a gunshot wound, at least an entrance gunshot wound.'"

And as to the "telling" lack of an "exit wound", the truth is that Gormley didn't look for an exit wound. CPO Janoski has testified under oath that Brown's body was never examined or photographed with the intent of looking for an exit wound and Gormley has admitted that is true. So once again the Snopes website is blatently wrong in it's description of the facts.

Next, the Snopes webpage uses the following logic (in bold) to try and dismiss the allegation:


"Simply imagining a scenario under which Ron Brown could have been shot takes one into the realm of the absurd. Was he shot in the head during the flight, in full view of thirty-four other witnesses? (If so, how did they get off the plane?) Did the killers shoot him before the flight, then bundle his body into a seat (just like "Weekend at Bernie's") and hope nobody noticed the gaping hole in his head?"


But don’t they have the cart before the horse? Don't most criminal investigations focus on determining if a murder has occurred based on the facts before simply ruling one out as an "absurd" possibility? In any other case, if all the expert pathologists were saying that based on what x-rays and their visual examination of a wound show there might be a bullet wound in the victim's head, wouldn't the normal procedure be to perform an autopsy, regardless of how difficult one might think it would have been to shoot that victim and get away with it? If pathologists then confirmed it was a bullet wound, then it would be appropriate to ask how it was done. And investigators would ask that question no matter how "absurd" the scenario to inflict that bullet wound might seem at the time? They wouldn't just dismiss the bullet because putting one there seemed an absurd impossibility.

Furthermore, Snopes acts as if the only possible scenario here is one where Brown is shot in front of 34 witnesses while on the plane. That isn't necessarily impossible but it also isn't the only possible scenario. It's not absurd to believe that if the plane was made to crash (in an effort to kill Brown), then whoever was responsible would do the logical thing and make sure someone would be there to verify his death … and deal with him should it turned out he was not dead. In other words, Brown might have been shot in the head after the crash because he survived the crash (and I remind you that Wecht said his survival was possible given the nature of his other injuries).

A credible scenario is that the plane was spoofed into the mountain to provide a reasonable cover for Brown's death and perhaps cause that death. Aviation Week (a source of some authority in the aviation world back in the 90s) stated that the flight path of the plane was consistent with a portable beacon spoofing the plane into the mountain. Is it just coincidence that the government later admitted that a portable airport beacon went missing from the airport sometime before the crash? And what a coincidence that the person in charge of that airport's beacons died after the crash before investigators could interview him under curious circumstances. Or was it just coincidence?

Since in this scenario one could not be certain the crash would kill Brown, the instigators of the crash would want to have someone reach the crash site before any rescue party and make sure he was dead. Remember, the murderers would know where the plane was coming down because they controlled the portable beacon. And we know that the search effort was misdirected initially (out over the ocean instead of near the airport) so that it took hours and hours for rescuers to reach the crash even though it was only a few miles from the airport. There was plenty of time for a "clean up" crew, if you will, to get there first. And surely you are aware that the Associated Press reported that the first Croatian rescuers arrived and found several Americans already at the site (even though officially the first US personnel didn't arrive until after the Croatians). Was AP just "mistaken" in it's report too?

A crash in Croatia also would make it possible to control access to the site (i.e., keep nosy journalists away), something that the instigators might want. And that's what the State Department did … ordered camera crews and journalists away from the crash site. That's one of the things that Ira Sockowitz (who was implicated in Chinagate, by the way) handled. And what a coincidence that Ira was supposed to be on the ill-fated flight (he admitted this years later) … but just happened to *miss* it. Yet, he was able to get to the crash site in time to be their point man and keep the MSM away from the site … and report back to the Secretary Of State about "two" survivors.

We also know key administration officials and military personnel were in the position to control every aspect of the investigation. For example, you must be aware that the military didn't follow the usual approach to investigating an Air Force crash. The White House ordered that they completely skip the first phase of the normal two-phase crash investigation … the phase that, coincidently, normally determines the cause of the crash. Instead, it was simply assumed from the very beginning that this was an accident and nothing more.

A few key individuals at AFIP were also involved. Besides Dickerson, they had their man Gormley, also now a proven liar, examine the body *officially*. He had complete control over the official conclusion regarding the cause of Brown's death. If Janoski hadn't been standing nearby, voiced her thoughts (based on photographing many other cases of gunshot) and taken photos of the first set of x-rays before they were destroyed by Gormley, no one in the public would ever have known the hole in Brown's head looked like a bullet wound or that there were x-rays showing suspicious features. And what a coincidence that after the controversy exploded, the original x-rays and photos of Brown's head injuries disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP … a safe to which only the top people at AFIP had access. It looks like every effort was made by key people to control and coverup what happened. Even when the cat was already out of the bag.

They even punished every one of the military officers who went public about the suspicious activities at Dover and AFIP. With no explanation, Janoski was given 32 hours to clear out of her office (with no replacement), had her staff taken away from her, and was made an assistant to an audio-visual manager at another location in a job that had never existed before. Cogwell was banished to dental pathology, a field in which he was not qualified. Hause was transferred to Fort Leonard Wood and made a hospital pathologist, a significant demotion. Parsons likewise was made a hospital pathologist. In short, their military careers were ruined. Don't the folks at Snopes find this the least bit suspicious and worthy of investigation? Isn't that treatment of fine military officers who appear to have been only interested in the truth cause for at least a little indignation on their part?

The Air Force also lied in a letter to the families of the victims. It's a matter of record that Acting Secretary of the Air Force F. Whitten Peters sent a letter to family members of the air crash victims attempting to debunk the bullet wound thesis. Perhaps to keep those families from lawyering up to pursue the matter even though they'd already signed an agreement not to sue in return for the millions of dollars in compensation that each family received on average (an agreement, by the way, that blamed weather for the crash even though the official crash report ruled out weather as the cause). Peters stated in the letter that: "Due to the initial appearance of Secretary Brown's injuries, the medical examiners carefully considered the possibility of a gunshot wound. However, their examinations combined with X-rays ruled out that possibility." But, as proven above, this claim is an absolute lie on multiple levels. Peters' letter also said "the medical examiner determined there was no gunshot wound, and therefore concluded there was no need for further examination. Had there been suspicion regarding the nature of Mr. Brown's death - or the death of any other person on the aircraft - medical examiners would have pursued permission to perform a full internal examination." This too is a clear lie, given that calls for an autopsy were voiced repeatedly during the examination and the reasons given by Gormley for not performing one have been shown to be bogus. And Peters' letter also stated that "The alleged 'bullet fragments' mentioned in the reports were actually caused by a defect in the reusable X-ray film cassettes. Medical examiners took multiple X-rays using multiple cassettes and confirmed this finding." This too is a lie for the reasons already noted. So why isn't Snopes commenting on the veracity of Peters' claims in his letter? Hmmmm?

This isn't all that complicated. Or all that "absurd." So don't get the cart before the horse. Before declaring the "absurdity" of Brown being murdered, shouldn't we just find out if Brown was actually murdered? Why doesn’t Snopes join people like me in calling for an exhumation and autopsy of his body? Unlike Vince Foster's, Brown's body was not cremated (remember the video of Bill Clinton's crocodile tears as he left the funeral?). Competent pathologists with all the technology we have today could probably still determine if there was a bullet wound or not. And while we wait for that autopsy to occur, they could address some of the following:

- How "absurd" is it that both voice and transponder communication with the plane would cease when the plane was still 8 miles from the mountain it supposedly just hit by accident? Yet, that's the case. (And note that cutting the plane off from communication with the airport would have been critical to ensure it was spoofed into hitting the mountain.)

- How absurd is it that the chief maintenance officer at the airport who was in charge of the airport beacons and the backup portable beacon would (it's was claimed) commit suicide via a shotgun to the chest over a girlfriend just a day after the crash and before investigators could interview him? Yet, that's the case.

- How absurd is it that the Clintons and various government spokespersons repeatedly claimed the plane went down in the worst weather in a century, yet the Air Force report would say weather played no significant role in the crash and planes landed without incident both before and after the crash occurred? Yet, that's the case.

- How absurd is it that the Clinton administration would want to silence someone who was threatening to take their whole criminal affair down with him by turning state's evidence in Chinagate and CampaignFinanceGate? Yet, there was sworn testimony by a confidante of Brown to that effect. And testimony and statements by a judge that immediately after Brown's death there was a flurry of paper shredding at the Department of Commerce.

Finally, the final attack that their website makes on the allegation of foul play in the Ron Brown death is this statement (in bold):


"See what the Air Force had to say about this crash."


I find it hilarious that Snopes would reference a report that never even mentioned the statements of the pathologists about bullets and autopsies, and that completely skipped the portion of the investigation that usually determines the cause of the crash. A report that was supposed to supply the families of the victims with the facts of the case in the event they would want to pursue a wrongful death case in court. Is it any surprise that this excuse makes me doubt the trustworthiness of your site? It makes me wonder if Snopes has a liberal bias , like so many others in the mainstream media. It makes me wonder if Snopes has a policy of defending the Clintons against all allegations (other than the Monica affair, which after all was just about consensual sex in their view).

In conclusion, note that what I've presented above regarding this case is only a portion of the data that contradicts the official version that Snopes currently defend on their site. I could add much more. But that should be enough to convince them that their site's description of the Brown allegation is incomplete and grossly inaccurate. Since Snopes is an organization that promotes (prides?) itself as examining all the facts to assess the validity of claims made about events, one would think that being informed of all the above they would make the necessary corrections on their website with respect to the Ron Brown matter. At least remove Ron Brown as one of the names on their Clinton Body Count list. If they don’t, then one might reasonably ask why not?

Now as I said, I contacted them years ago, with all of the above concerns and facts. And you can see by visiting the link to their site that since my contact with them the only thing they’ve changed in their description is the wording of that last item. Now they’ve expanded it to say this …


“An exhaustive Air Force investigation of the crash found that pilot error was to blame.


They then quote from this link (http://web.archive.org/web/20021002034252/http://www.af.mil/news/Jun1996/n19960610_960550.html )


The aircrew made errors while planning and executing the mishap flight, which, when combined, were a cause of the mishap. During mission planning, the crew's review of the Dubrovnik approach failed to determine that it required two automatic direction finders, or ADFs, and that it could not be flown with the single ADF onboard their aircraft. Additionally, the crew improperly flight planned their route which added 15 minutes to their flight time. The pilots rushed their approach and did not properly configure the aircraft for landing prior to commencing the final segment of the approach. They crossed the final approach fix flying at 80 knots above final approach speed, and without clearance from the tower.

As a result of the rushed approach, the late configuration, and a radio call from a pilot on the ground, the crew was distracted from adequately monitoring the final approach. The pilots flew a course 9 degrees left of the correct course. They also failed to identify the missed approach point and to execute a timely missed approach.


But, of course, there are a myriad flaws and falsehoods in this claim as well. Because first of all, the investigation was NOT “exhaustive”. Indeed, it started with the ASSUMPTION that it was an innocent accident. Prior to Brown's death, an Air Force crash investigation consisted of two phases … a Safety Investigation Board (SIB) and an Accident Investigation Board (SIB). Brown's crash was the first time in US Air Force history, other than one clear case of friendly fire shooting down of a helicopter in Iraq, where the Air Force skipped the SIB. Now why would they skip the SIB? Top Clinton Administration and Air Force officials claimed that the reason they ordered the SIB skipped was to speed up the investigation process, due to Brown's *important* status. But this Air Combat Command link (http://www.acc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2356 ) states: "AIB Reports are completed and released in approximately 60-90 days. This figure includes time after the reports are written for completion of technical review and coordination, then approval by the convening authority (the Major Command Commander), and a briefing to family members (if applicable)." Since it took the Air Force 60 days (from the crash on April 3, 1996 to June 7, 1996) to release the Accident Investigation Report in the Ron Brown Crash, what time was actually saved? The reason is transparently bogus.

Now, I’ll tell you the reason the Air Force was ordered to skip the SIB … because Air Force documents state the "Safety investigations take priority over accident investigations" and that "the sole purpose of safety investigations is mishap prevention AND TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE(s) of accidents." The mere act of convening an AIB and skipping the SIB pre-supposed an innocent accident and not foul play. Furthermore, the stated purpose of an AIB is to "provide a publicly releasable report of the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident AND INCLUDE A STATEMENT OF OPINION AS TO WHY THE ACCIDENT HAPPENED." Air Force documents state that "AIBs are further used by the Air Force for the adjudication of wrongful death, personal injury and property damage claims resulting from the accident." Now isn't it curious that a document the Air Force gave Brown family (and other victims' family) members and their lawyers to help them in case of a wrongful death left out such crucial facts as the concerns of the pathologists that day about a possible bullet wound in Brown's head? Left out the original x-rays of Brown's head showing the evidence of a bullet in it? Try to convince me there wasn't a coverup involving top military officials going on here, MrKelly. Try to explain why Snopes failed to note or mention any of the above peculiarities in their supposedly unbiased, *accurate* explanation of Brown’s death?

Then there's the matter of the flight path. Again, Snopes ignores a number of significant facts. Instead it simply regurgitates the official line … which concluded the cause of the crash was "failure of command, aircrew error and an improperly designed instrument approach procedure." But the last communication between the plane and the airport was when the plane was still 12 kilometers from the airport … almost 8 miles. Why did they lose communication? Aviation Week stated they lost both radio and transponder contact at the same time. Why? This loss of communication was never explained by the Air Force in their report and news conferences. It was just ignored. It’s ignored in the link that Snopes cited above. Don't you think a loss of communication would be a major factor worthy of investigation in an “exhaustive* investigation, Kelly? But apparently neither the Air Force brass, Whitehouse, or Snopes could care less about that rather convenient loss of communication.

Next, the official Air Force report on the crash contained detailed data showing the plane's course based on AWACS airborne radar. The data showed that shortly after the loss of communication, when the plane was still miles from touching down at Dubrovnik, it suddenly changed course radically. It turned to the left almost 90 degrees then a few seconds later, made a turn back to the right. It then fixed on a course which it followed for over a minute, ending in a mountain, nearly two miles off course. When Major General Coolidge, the military officer in charge of the crash investigation, was asked about these sudden flight maneuvers at a press conference, all he had to say is that they were “anomalies” of “no significance”. Was crashing into a mountain, as a result, of no significance … just like the loss of communication?

Now Snopes was again advised by me years ago of these errors … several times. They’ve simply ignored my posts because they have no interest in the truth where the Clintons are concerned. Why does Snopes have no interest in these peculiar and hard to explain facts and questions, Kelly? Why does Snopes simple accept whatever explanation the Clinton administration lackeys offered ... much like you currently accept whatever explanation Hillary and her lackeys offer for her failure to protect classified information (explanations which I suppose Snopes will also regurgitate ... bets anyone?)? I'll tell you why. It’s because they really don’t care about "accuracy" where the Clintons are concerned. They are as partisan and Truther-like in their defense of the Clintons as most Democrats and will spin ANY fact or circumstance in order to protect them. And to a great extent, that's true in their defense of the Obama administration, too. So they are NOT trustworthy where politics is concerned. Just saying … :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAC shows up to paste walls of text and demonstrate how he can't tell the difference between facts and his own opinions.



Now you haven't disproven a single statement of mine in that post, ScottMoN. And you won't be able to, so dishonestly is all you have left as your *argument*. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Now you haven't disproven a single statement of mine in that post, ScottMoN. And you won't be able to, so dishonestly is all you have left as your *argument*. :rolleyes:

Because you talk a lot and don't say a damn thing. :D You lack the basic honesty to even admit that all you've posted is speculation and opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...