Replies

The reason the Brown Matter is considered 'resolved' is because Kelly, AFIP spokesman, said there was a unanymous decision by an AFIP internal panel. Members of that panel spoke out contradicting that report. The Washington Post never had the journalistic integrity to retract the lie. If members of that panel say the decision was not unanymous, I believe it safe to say that the Washington Post is sub-tabloid, merely an agenda driven propaganda rag, light years behind the integrity of Matt Drudge. Here we are in 2004, several years later, and the Washington Post doesn't retract the proven lie.

Worse still, one of the forensics specialists who disputed the now-proven false report was Hause. He saw the body personally. Combine that with this: the orginal x-rays and photos went missing. It is only the curiousity of Janoski that prompted her to take extra photos of the bodies and the x-rays that we know anything about this.

Parsons was also on that panel. He also was not part of that 'unanymous' conclusion. There you have it. Two who prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Washington Post has zero credibility. And yet, FReeping Thomases and kookophobes continue with the the lame mantra about a 'kamakazi shooter', based on this false report.

To top this off about the Washington Post "article", the AFIP never provided any written material about the "unanymous" internal panel.

Here are the four forensics specialists who dispute the AFIP:

Hause: He personally examined the wound and said it looks like a bullet hole. He proved that the Washington Post article was a hoax because it could not have been unanymous without him being part of that unanymity.

Janoski: She saw the body and took photos of the body and x-rays. Janoski was a registered and active democrat. She was also in the military for a very long time.

Parsons: An Air Force major and forensic pathologist, Thomas Parsons was a member of the internal panel.

Cogswell: He was the forensics specialist Janoski gave the photos to.

In page 52 of a Newsmax Special Report about Ron Brown, Cogswell was evaluated in 1995 by both Gormley and Dickerson as being the AFIP's top expert in gunshot wounds. Gormley and Dickerson later disputed Cogswell over Brown. Cogswell had nothing but sterling evaluations prior to the Brown crash. Cogswell and Dickerson cited him as the Number One forensics pathology consultant in the Department of Defense.

Cogswell led the investigation of the plane wreckage and never could find any object that could have made a .45 inch hole, inwardly bevelling, perfectly round, in the top of Ron Brown's head. But the x-rays that seem to show a lead snowstorm helped him conclude that there should definitely be an autopsy.

On page 23 of that special report by Newsmax, Gormley ADMITTED that he would have preferred to have an autopsy, but he claimed he didn't have the authority to perform one. But he did have the power to get that authority, through the Presidential Assassination Statute, which covers cabinet members.

So the kookophobes and FReeping Thomases even dispute Gormley, at least regarding a desire for an autopsy. There are only two legs left on the stool of their dissent:

1. The utterly discredited Washington Post article.
2. The kamakazi shooter mantra. I have a pat response to this mantra now:

"What if the shooter was on the ground? The beacons were reportedly moved, which is apparently what caused the crash. If someone is on the ground, moving the beacons, then he need not have ACME spring shoes like Wild E. Coyote to jump up on board the plane and be a kamakazi shooter. Nor does he need supernatural powers to walk up to the wreckage and check over the bodies. Do you guys have some kind of manual you go by? "Chapter 1, the Kamakazi Shooter Theory"."