Are you afraid of the facts? Why don't you want to talk about the statements of the MILITARY EXPERTS ... the PATHOLOGISTS and the photographer ... who say there might have been a bullet wound in Browns head? WHy don't you want to talk about the x-rays and photographs that seem to support that suspicion? Why do you want the cart before the horse? Usually, REAL INVESTIGATORS, try to find out IF a murder took place before asking HOW it took place. Why do you move-on'ers fear a little exhumation and autopsy?
And by the way, the theory I think the facts support (Remember those? Want to debate them?) is that the plane was spoofed into crashing into the ground in a location where a cleanup crew was waiting. They just made sure Brown was dead. Would you like to argue the facts that suggest that ... or do you want to RUN ... like democRATS ALWAYS do. Would you like to explain why both transponder and radio contact was lost with the plane when it was still 8 MILES from the crash site. Care to explain the missing beacon or the suicide of the man in charge of it? Care to explain reports of the first rescuers being met by 3 Americans, even though the Air Force insists the Croatians got there first? Hummm? And I have plenty more facts after you get done with those.
Or would you prefer to debate the facts in the Riady non-refund ... or Filegate? No? I wonder why.
When you present some but then damn, that takes all the fun out of conspiracies now doesn't it?