Posted on 12/01/2001 4:06:05 PM PST by ChaseR
VA Advogado - I have very good sources on this. However, I can not reveal them or BAC will know where I get my information that I use to refute him. I will say, ask BAC if he thinks that photo is authentic. I will go by whatever he says (in regards to its validity).
goldilucky,
Don't be taken in by VA Advogado. He is LIAR.
He first posted this photo on another thread to another individual, calling it an autopsy photo ... because he wants everyone to believe an autopsy was done so that requests for one now will fall on deaf ears. The individual to whom he posted the photo questioned its authenticity because the URL that VA Advogado said he got it from was rather odd. VA Advogado was unable to address this person's concern. I then posted to that individual in order to say that the photo IS authentic (in fact, the Air Force has admitted that) and indicate the ORIGINAL source of the image (Janoski and Cogswell via Ruddy). VA Advogado keeps suggesting that I don't think the photo authentic when ALL ALONG I have stated that it is.
Now, just to prove this is another instance in which VA Advogado is being DISHONEST, here is a URL at newsmax.com which shows the source of the image VA Advogado has posted.
http://www.newsmax.com/rbrown/photo6.shtml
Note that the image he posted is just a portion of the total photo. As I said before, when he posted his image along with the odd URL from which he got it, he clearly did not know the original source of the image. It was taken by the photographer, Janoski, at the Brown examination.
There are some other interesting photos at newsmax.com ... in particular, the x-rays of the head. They can be accessed through
http://www.newsmax.com/rbrown/photos.shtml
In fact, you might want to browse through some of the other material on Brown at the newsmax site. You'll see various articles, by various authors, from which I compiled some of the item descriptions in my summary. You will also find NO MENTION of an autopsy being done on Brown ... because none was done ... as the quotes I provided earlier show.
VA Advogado is a LIAR and you should question his motives for doing so. You should note the folks who chime in to defend him. You should note who he chimes in to defend. ALL of them are "move-on'ers" as far as the crimes committed by the DNC and Clinton administration are concerned. Either they are democRATS or a new (and dangerous) breed of Republicans who treat the law with as much disrespect as democRATS.
If that is true, why has EVERY pathologist who has publically come forward to comment on the evidence stated that it DOES look like a bullet wound? Instead of naming other pathologists OR ANY EXPERTS who disagree, or holding a meeting with such experts to convince the whistleblowers that they were wrong, the government chose to TOTALLY DESTROY the careers of every one of the whistleblowers. That's not the behavior of an organization that respects its people and is only interested in the truth. That's the behavior of an organization HIDING something.
Also, the trauma appears to have violated the inner table of bone only on the right side in the photo, inconsistent with a high speed pentrating missle injury.
Actually, BOTH of the pathologists who actually saw the wound have now stated that NO bone was visible in the hole. Furthermore, the pathologists also say that the x-rays clearly show the bone displaced off to the side of the hole.
AFIP consultants are usually quite good, and I can't imagine they would allow an investigation to proceed without autopsy unless autopsy was vetoed from above.
See my list of incriminating items. These were amongst the best pathologists at AFIP. The need for an autopsy was voiced AT THE EXAMINATION. Gormley, the examining pathologist and the one who was in charge of the whole effort, has since admitted to Judicial Watch that the ORDER to NOT to do an autopsy came from Whitehouse and JCS. He has also changed his tune and admitted that an autopsy should have been done based on what the physical evidence indicated.
We can't really answer questions about Brown's death without an autopsy;
Absolutely. That's ALL I'm asking for. A simple exhumation and autopsy. It would take a few weeks at most. Just have a few of the whistleblowers in attendance so we can have faith in the results. If Brown was shot, then even 6 years later there will be evidence to prove it. And it would be very difficult to tamper with the skull so that it looked like he wasn't shot if he had been.
we can (potentially) find out why no fully documented autopsy was performed.
Doing this rather than an autopsy is a non-starter. They will just SPIN an excuse. Do an autopsy and IF it shows a murder then you can use the FACT that certain AFIP managers have demonstrably LIED about the opinions of their staff and the nature of the evidence to find out WHO exactly ordered that there be no autopsy. Then work your way up the chain of command to those who ordered and/or committed the killing.
Just bear in mind when agreeing with VA Advogado that he probably would not admit that the reason we know that Hillary was the force behind FILEGATE is Judicial Watch. You see, VA Advogado appears to want to move on with respect to ANY crime committed by the DNC and Clinton administration. He's a voice of discouragement in any effort to pursue/investigate those crimes. Ask yourself why.
There you have it Goldi, it took BAC 388 words to admit I was right.
I've been involved in them; and, no, all of them do NOT take this long. A lot of them are not federal cases either -- and by now, he should have FINISHED one, whether he won it or lost it; and I'm not talking about "finished" as in "thrown out" or "dismissed." He should have gone to trial with ANY of these cases by now and gotten a result one way or the other. But he hasn't. Says volumes.
Nobody EVER reports any of this stuff except the people on FR; says a lot, doesn't it?
It's time for you to stop the personal attacks.
Newmax?
Oh, my sides.........
That's the only good news in this whole sordid deal: The question can be answered with little room for doubt via exhumation. As for the pathologists who said that the wound violated both tables of the skull: They were there and I wasn't, and I must defer to them. However, the picture isn't a textbook representation of a GSW. How the picture in question relates to Brown's actual case remains unclear. Is it an actual photograph of Brown's wound; are there any other angles which better illustrate the depth and modulate the flash effect off white bone and similarly-colored brain; was there more than one skull injury?
We are certainly in agreement about the need for autopsy here, and that findings suspicious for GSW would place enormous pressure on those who made the decision to forgo autopsy, and perhaps reduce the latitude for spin. I'm not holding my breath while waiting..............
The photo came from www.newsmax.com site and is one of those taken by Janoski who was the official photographer at Dover for the Brown examination. Apparently, Ruddy sells a videotape about the case that has more images. The newsmax site also contains images of the x-rays of the skull. From what I gather, other than the one hole, there were no other skull injuries. In fact, Wecht stated in his evaluation of the material from the case that other than the wound in question he could see no life threatening injury on Brown. So IF the wound didn't come from an object in the plane (and Colonel Cogswell searched the site and found nothing that was the right size to make the wound) and he wasn't shot before the crash, Brown might have been alive afterwords.
We are certainly in agreement about the need for autopsy here, and that findings suspicious for GSW would place enormous pressure on those who made the decision to forgo autopsy, and perhaps reduce the latitude for spin.
I'm glad you agree. Furthermore, those AFIP officials who clearly LIED about the nature of the wound and the opinions of the pathologists would have a lot of explaining to do. Between Gormley, Dickerson, Sentell, Junger and several others ... I think someone would break. Also, Sockowitz and Christopher would need to be questioned about the 2nd survivor. The head of the AIB would have to explain why the AIB didn't even mention the pathologist views and x-rays. I think there would be lots of avenues for eventually finding out what really happened given the pressure that an honest DOJ, FBI and JCS could put on these people.
I'm not holding my breath while waiting..............
No. Perhaps that wouldn't be wise. But if this isn't investigated, I will be asking the GOP why and their answer will figure prominently into whether I ever vote Republican again (and I'm a life-long Republican).
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.