Hillary as Secretary Of State? Change?

[BeAChooser]

varwoche, I didn't say "will see it". I said "can see it".

Even though I can parse like a Clinton, I can't overcome the blinders worn by members of the Cult of Clinton.

 

[Tricky]

The desperate person is the one ignoring longs lists of facts they can't begin to explain. That would be you, Tricky.

Somehow, I don't think that would be the way the average skeptic here would evaluate this. You rant and rave and you convince... who? Has your Wall Of Text convinced anyone? You call it a long list of facts. The Vikings called a frozen island of ice "Greenland". Advertisement only works until people look at the goods.

Maybe they are just too close to the problem?

Do you think Vince Foster's family is too close to the problem too? Of all the people who would want justice it should be the ones whose husband/brother/father was murdered. Wouldn't that make sense? Yet they are not the ones pursuing this conspiracy theory of yours, or rather, the conspiracy theory you've borrowed from others. What does that suggest to you, BAC? Either they're in on the conspiracy, or they're willing to let their beloved family member's murderer go free.

Or perhaps, unlike you, they realize there is no rational reason to pursue this.

Your BS can't even convince the audience who should want truth more than anyone else. How the heck do you think it can convince a bunch of skeptics?

Hating the Clintons doesn't seem to be working out for you. Have you considered a new hobby, like stamp collecting?

 

[Lonewulf]

You call it a long list of facts. The Vikings called a frozen island of ice "Greenland". Advertisement only works until people look at the goods.

 

[gdnp]

NO ONE amongst all his friends and associates at the time of the death indicated he showed any signs of depression. Fiske and Starr lied when they later claimed they did.

You are wrong. You have repeatedly said that Foster showed no signs of depression. From WebMD:

What are symptoms of depression?

According to the National Institute of Mental Health, symptoms of depression may include the following:

* difficulty concentrating, remembering details, and making decisions
* fatigue and decreased energy
* feelings of guilt, worthlessness, and/or helplessness
* feelings of hopelessness and/or pessimism
* insomnia, early-morning wakefulness, or excessive sleeping
* irritability, restlessness
* loss of interest in activities or hobbies once pleasurable, including sex
* overeating or appetite loss
* persistent aches or pains, headaches, cramps, or digestive problems that do not ease even with treatment
* persistent sad, anxious, or "empty" feelings
* thoughts of suicide, suicide attempts

 

[A'isha]

Well if the definition is a site that seems to prove, using federal investigative records, a conspiracy to cover up a murder, then I suppose it is.

No, it's a conspiracy site because it alleges a massive conspiracy between the FBI and the media (the whole media?) and others to conceal the murder of Vince Foster.

But calling it that doesn't in and of itself make anything on the site untrue.

No, but it makes it a lot less likely.

You completely mischaracterize what Knowlton and Assistant US Attorney Michael Rodriguez actually said and claimed on the matter of blood. They are not in disagreement.

Not in the least. Knowlton claims that Foster was murdered long before he was supposed to have committed suicide, and probably at another location. Therefore, he says, the lack of fresh liquid blood in quantity at the location his body was found is proof that his claims are true.

Except that according to Rodriguez, there was lots of fresh liquid blood at the scene, discovered when Foster's body was moved. If Rodriguez is right, Knowlton's claims cannot be true.

Why do you ignore their eyewitnesses accounts and the timeframe when they said they saw little blood, ANTPogo?

Because, as Rodriguez explains in the passage Knowlton himself quotes, the lack of blood was due to the way the body fell after Foster shot himself, and not because he was killed elsewhere at a much earlier time.

Why do you ignore the fact that Rodriquez said Fiske and Starr lied when they claimed "that a quantity of blood was observed where the body was first discovered"?

I like how Rodriguez is now a big fat liar as soon as he says something that contradicts the conspiracy theory. And yet, he's somehow simultaneously trustworthy enough to be Knowlton's primary "witness" in blowing the cover-up wide open.

To quote you from later in this post, "I was totally accurate in stating that 911 truthers ignore any fact that proves them wrong."

And so, apparently, do "Vince Foster truthers".

In fact, on almost every detail, not just the blood, Rodriguez actually confirms the deceptions and coverup that Knowlton's website claims occurred. Why do you ignore those many other instances? You seem to be ignoring a lot, ANTPogo.

He claims there are deceptions and a coverup, true, but he pretty much puts paid to the notion that Knowlton's pet theory about all that is correct.

I insinuated no such thing. I said "Maybe he did type that note but it only confirms the above facts." I agreed with the possibllity that the doctor typed the note, not claimed he didn't.

Then why the "maybe"?

I do find it a little odd that the note only surfaces months after Fiske's investigation. Was the doctor hiding it the whole time? Unlikely. Was Fiske? Now I can understand why Fiske might hide it. Because observe ... the note corroborates the contents of the earlier FBI interview quotes that YOU insinuated were fake. Both the note and FBI interview statement show Fiske (and Starr) lied about the doctor saying Foster was clinically depressed. And I can't help but notice that you simply ignored that part.

Why did Fiske and Starr, after "maybe" forging and/or hiding this damning note that proves them to be liars, publish this note in their official report?

Either this is the most boneheaded conspiracy ever, or, just perhaps, there was no conspiracy.

FALSE. Snopes (and Starr and Fiske) all claimed that Foster "contacted his doctor about his depression" ... meaning that Foster called the doctor because he identified himself as being depressed. That's simply not true. The portion of the note that you didn't highlight said Foster "complained of anorexia and insomnia." Not depression. During the course of the doctor's interview with Foster apparently the doctor asked Foster if he was depressed but that was not the reason Foster contacted his doctor ... not because he identified himself as being depressed. Snopes is misleading to suggest he did. You are playing misleading word games.

Why would the doctor ask, unprompted, if Foster was depressed, do you think? Assuming things happened that way in the first place, of course.

And according to the FBI interview quotes that you insinuated are fake,

If they're not, it should be a simple matter for you to find them on a site that doesn't allege a massive government conspiracy.

She never even mentioned the word depression nor did she (on any other family and friends interviewed that night) see any behavior indicating depression.

Again, why would the doctor ask, unprompted, if Foster was depressed, if this is all true?

I didn't twist anything.

I was totally accurate in stating that 911 truthers ignore any fact that proves them wrong and that your side has done the same in the Foster case. In fact, you proved me right in your post.

So far, the only twisting and ignoring of any inconvenient facts has come from those that allege Foster was murdered.

I was totally accurate in stating that 911 truthers ignore or dismiss what real experts on the subject say.

You're right. Instead, they quote extensively from practitioners of unproven and crackpot "analytic techniques", quotemine early witness reports for statements that show "inconsistencies" with the "official account", and rely on what "conspiracy researchers" and website operators say about the events in question.

I'm the one quoting the experts as far as hand writing analysis is concerned. I'm the one quoting the witness statements gathered by Park Police and the FBI in this matter.

And as we've seen in this case, I'm the one accurately quoting what Knowlton and Rodriguez said.

Hmm...

 

[Ladewig]

I'm tired of reading this merry-go-round thread, so I'll hop off with a final sentiment. I'm glad Hillary is a murderer. It gives her street cred. I want a secretary of state that can tell world leaders, "Don't f*** with me. I kill people who f*** with me." If she can acquire blackmail material on dozens of senators, two presidents, and an independent investigator, I'm sure she can acquire blackmail material on foreign heads of state.

Speaking of blackmail, that would be a plausible explanation for Mr. Foster's death: maybe he wasn't depressed but rather was being blackmailed by somebody and decided to kill himself rather than face the shame.

 

[varwoche]

varwoche, I didn't say "will see it". I said "can see it".

Even though I can parse like a Clinton, I can't overcome the blinders worn by members of the Cult of Clinton.

And then some. indeed!

 

[BeAChooser]

Do you think Vince Foster's family is too close to the problem too? Of all the people who would want justice it should be the ones whose husband/brother/father was murdered.

Foster's family could have lots of reasons for choosing not to investigate further ... for choosing to even hinder investigations. Just like the Brown family.

For starters, maybe they just trust authority or trusted Starr? He looks trustworthy. But does that change any of the facts I noted? No. It does not. You just continue to ignore those facts. Maybe they did too? And those facts suggest Starr (and Fiske) weren't worthy of trust at all ... that they LIED. So that would make the family gullible. Like you.

Maybe they really would be emotionally hurt seeing photos of their husband's/father's/brother's crime scene or autopsy photos placed in the public domain? So they resist efforts to have those photos released. That doesn't mean the photos wouldn't prove Starr's story a lie. It just means they are emotionally sensitive people. I feel for them but I don't think their emotional needs transcend the needs of the nation. Certainly this was the first time that they have in a case like this. Curious.

Maybe they just wanted this nightmare over so they could move on with their lives. That's actually a common reaction. People don't want to dredge up even worse nightmares ... or facts that might perhaps even sully the name of the dead loved one (Foster was involved in some of the scandals). Note that Lisa apparently suffered a breakdown after the death. She considered suicide. She underwent therapy and took rather heavy medications. Maybe the doctors advised her to "move on" for health reasons. Since then she has remarried ... interestingly enough to a Clinton associate ... Arkansas Judge James Maxwell Moody, who was appointed to the bench by Clinton shortly before they were married. I hope she's happy. But that doesn't alter the facts I've noted which indicate Fiske and Starr lied.

Maybe they feared for their own lives? Afterall, if Starr and the FBI could threaten and intimidate a Deputy US Attorney (that's what Rodriguez said happened to him) and other witnesses ... like Patrick Knowlton (who got the facts about his intimidation attached to Starr's report through a court order) ... who knows what pressure might be brought to bear on an ordinary family member? David Schippers (you remember who he is?) said in his book on Clinton's impeachment, that the intimidation by the Clinton machine against Broaddrick and others was worse than what the mob did (and he was a lawyer who specialized in putting mobsters in jail). And we know how the Clinton administration intimidated people in the Ron Brown case. So maybe Foster's wife and family feared for their lives or livelihood?

Remember, Lisa and Foster's sister (Sheila Foster Anthony) were part of the Clinton inner circle. Sheila Anthony was an Assistant Attorney General in Clinton's adminstration. She might know the lengths to which the Clintons would go to protect themselves, having had to deal with previous scandals. Who knows what Vince told Lisa about all his work for the Clintons. And valid or not, the Clinton death list was out there being discussed. That might be a reason for them to fear their own safety. (Remember Linda Tripp describing how that list was left on her desk at work during Filegate?) And this was after the Ron Brown allegations surfaced. If that allegation was true, no one could be considered safe.

And here's something interesting. Do you know the son of Judge Moody, Neil Moody, died under curious circumstances in 1996, eight months after Lisa and the Judge married? He reportedly found a document in Lisa's private papers at Lisa's house where the Judge and Neil were then residing. He reportedly told a friend it would change history. He was reportedly in contact with a columnist about it. On the eve of the Democrat Convention where Clinton was nominated for a second term, Neil died in a car crash. The car went out of control (for an unknown reason) and ran into a brick wall at very high speed. Neil was seen sitting in his car, arguing with another person, just prior to that crash. Here is what was posted at FreeRepublic about that incident:

From NEXIS:

Copyright 1996 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
August 26, 1996, Monday

HEADLINE: POLICE BEAT

BYLINE: Democrat-Gazette Staff

Man dies as truck crashes into wall

A Little Rock man died Sunday after his truck left University Avenue and struck a retaining wall.

Neal C. Moody, 30, of 1413 Pine Valley Road was driving south in the 100 block of University Avenue in his 1995 Isuzu Trooper at 4 a.m. Sunday.

Moody's truck left the road, crossed the driveway of Bennigan's, struck a curb and became airborne for 22 feet. The vehicle came down and traveled 108 feet until it struck a wall. Moody was pronounced dead at 4:24 a.m. at St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center.

The police report said the investigation was turned over to the detective's office because of witness statements and a "suspicious document" found on Moody.

Just food for thought.

Or maybe family members were part of the conspiracy or coverup ... bought off in some manner. Afterall, Lisa Foster and Vince's sister both changed their stories about Foster being depressed after attending a meeting in the Whitehouse where the *suicide* note was discussed. What else was discussed at that meeting? Lisa and Sheila didn't say. But they did change their stories right after that. That's a fact. It's also a fact that Sheila Anthony transferred $286,000 from a DNC account to Lisa, four days before Foster's death. Why? Was it just a coincidence? Or could money and appointments have bought silence for something? Could Vince have been fretting over that? Could Lisa's breakdown have been partly due to guilt about that?

Note that four days before Foster died, Sheila reportedly did something else. She supposedly called a psychiatrist, Dr, Robert Hedaya, who later told the FBI that she said Foster (who she did not name) was working on "Top Secret" matters at the White House and "that his depression was directly related to highly sensitive and confidential matters". Yet, on the night of his death, Sheila was specifically asked by investigators if she saw any signs of this (Vince's death) coming and she said "no". She never mentioned depression to the investigators. Not once. How odd. Also odd is that Park Police lead investigator, John Rolla, filed a report only a couple of days after the death in which he said he called each of the 3 psychiatrists names that was found on the note in Foster's wallet (that was curiously in the car and not on him), and Hedaya made no mention of Sheila's call, saying only that he had not talked to Foster. Odd. You’d think he would have responded to the inquiring policeman, “No, Mr. Foster didn’t call me about an appointment, but his sister did just this past Friday.”

And the story of Sheila's husband, Beryl Anthony, changed too. In an interview on July 22, when asked if Foster had been depressed during the two weeks prior to death, he said: "There is not a damn thing to it. That's a bunch of crap." But of course, on July 27th, after the torn note meeting which Sheila attended, he changed his story and told Park police that "that he and his wife had noticed a gradual decline in Mr. Foster's general disposition to the point of depression."

How about the lawyer that Webb Hubbell (now there's an honest guy ... ... and one who facts show followed orders from Hillary) arranged to represent the Foster family the very night he was killed? His name was James Hamilton. He was general counsel of the Clinton transition team. He was the lawyer who was advising the Clintons at the time to stonewall (i.e., obstruct justice) in the Whitewater matter. Note that it was Whitewater documents that were probably taken from Foster's office the night he died. Note that after representing the Foster family, Hamilton was appointed to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

Is there finally something here to make you suspicious?

By the way Tricky, why did Foster make repeated trips to Geneva Switzerland? He bought a ticket for such a trip on July 1st, the month he died. But he never went and 12 days after he was refunded the cost of the trip by Swiss Air he was dead. In all the investigations by Fiske and Starr, those trips to Switzerland have never been mentioned. Odd.

 

[Lonewulf]

Just food for thought.

I smell mold.

 

[BeAChooser]

You have repeatedly said that Foster showed no signs of depression.

No, I said that when asked by investigators at the time of his death, his family, friends and work associates all said he showed no signs of depression.

What are symptoms of depression?

According to the National Institute of Mental Health, symptoms of depression may include the following:

* difficulty concentrating, remembering details, and making decisions
* fatigue and decreased energy
* feelings of guilt, worthlessness, and/or helplessness
* feelings of hopelessness and/or pessimism
* insomnia, early-morning wakefulness, or excessive sleeping
* irritability, restlessness
* loss of interest in activities or hobbies once pleasurable, including sex
* overeating or appetite loss
* persistent aches or pains, headaches, cramps, or digestive problems that do not ease even with treatment
* persistent sad, anxious, or "empty" feelings
* thoughts of suicide, suicide attempts

Good lord. According to that, almost all of us must be depressed.

Sorry gdnp, you are still avoiding the facts. Foster's family, friends and work associates, when interviewed immediatedly after his death, said he was not depressed ... that they saw no signs of depression. Starr lied when he later claimed they did.

Now maybe Foster was depressed but it must have been very mild. Because noone said they saw signs of it. Even Foster's doctor said he came in with complaints of insomnia ... which is clearly what he treated given the dosage of the drug he prescribed ... and only said he had MILD depression.

Now would you like to tell us why there was so little blood at the crime scene ... meaning the location where the body was originally at Marcy Park before it was moved to another location and investigators took a new batch crime scene photos (perhaps knowing that the original crime scene photos were going to *disappear*)? Or do you want to continue claiming (without proof) that you're an expert where Desyrel is concerned.

 

[Tricky]

Gosh BAC, all the innuendo you have provided suggests more and more evidene that Foster was indeed worried. Worried about the CIA investigating him, worried about "Top Secret" matters etc. You also suggest that his wife Lisa knew something about this and was herself considering suicide. Suggestions that he was setting up a little hidey hole in Switzerland... None of this paints the picture of a man who is cheerful and carefree.

Considering that your main point has been, for so long, that he couldn't have possibly been depressed, your Boschian painting of his world cuts at the very foundations of that argument. Your argument fights against itself like two pit bulls in an imaginary ring. You suggest Foster was simultaneously:

• neck-deep in a pit of slime and intrigue
• perfectly happy about it

Your argument simply does not sell. You can't give it away. You would have to pay somebody to haul it away.

 

[Lonewulf]

Your argument simply does not sell. You can't give it away. You would have to pay somebody to haul it away.

I assure you that I offer perfectly reasonable rates!

 

[BeAChooser]

it's a conspiracy site because it alleges a massive conspiracy between the FBI and the media (the whole media?) and others to conceal the murder of Vince Foster.

Well obviously not the whole media or we wouldn't know any of these facts. And apparently you didn't bother to listen to Rodriguez saying that only a few people in the FBI would have to know about the coverup because the rest would just do what they were ordered to do. It's much the same thing that went on in the Ron Brown case, for the record. (By the way, are you going to post on one of those Brown threads like you intimated you would? I'm eager to hear what you claim in that case. )

Knowlton claims that Foster was murdered long before he was supposed to have committed suicide, and probably at another location. Therefore, he says, the lack of fresh liquid blood in quantity at the location his body was found is proof that his claims are true.

Except that according to Rodriguez, there was lots of fresh liquid blood at the scene, discovered when Foster's body was moved.

False. You are indeed misrepresenting what Rodriguez said. He clearly states that there was little blood at the ORIGINAL location of the body at Marcy Park. He notes that there wasn't blood found under the body when it was moved from that location. He notes that all the EMT's at the scene observed these facts. (For example, I noted earlier ... which you just ignored like a good 9/11 truther ... that Fairfax County emergency medical workers Cory Ashford and Roger Harrison told the FBI that they saw little or no blood, didn't need gloves, didn't get blood on their white uniforms, and didn't see blood on the ground underneath the body after it was moved. It is perfectly obvious to any rational person that had there been an 1 in plus diameter hole in Foster's head having shot himself at the scene, none of those things would have been true.) Rodriguez also stated that blood ONLY came out of Foster's body when it was moved up the hill with the head positioned down slope. Why do you find it necessary to completely mischaracterize what Rodriguez said and ignore what the EMTs said? Are you that desperate to defend the Clintons, ANTPogo?

Because, as Rodriguez explains in the passage Knowlton himself quotes, the lack of blood was due to the way the body fell after Foster shot himself, and not because he was killed elsewhere at a much earlier time.

False. This is an outright LIE. Here is what Rodriquez said about the blood from a link I provided earlier (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0307/S00277.htm ):

By the way, you know why there was blood by the way. What happened is that by the time they got there when the body was in the position that it was in, there was no virtually no blood anywhere. Um, then there's, there are some conflicting reports about there being blood later on. Later the EMT sees blood, then Haut sees blood. Well the reason is very clear. They lifted the body and pulled it to the top of the ridge, top of the berm, and once they did that blood started flowing fast.

... snip ...

You see so Haut actually sees the body in two positions and people are conveniently using different phrases of Haut to justify whatever result they want. Sure Haut says on one hand there is no blood, then, he says, on the other hand, there is blood. The fact is, a number of people have said there was a small amount where the body was originally found. Later on it's moved to a horizontal position at the top of the berm where it does have some seepage under the body. And then when they put it in the body bag they see, faced in that horizontal position, there's a ten-inch or so bloodstain under the body.

Rodriguez clearly states that (1) the paramedics who first arrived reported seeing little blood, (2) personnel who came later saw a considerable amount, and (3) that blood came from lifting the body, pulling it to the top of the berm, where blood flowed out. He clearly states the body was moved from it's original location before blood in large amounts was observed.

Why would the doctor ask, unprompted, if Foster was depressed, do you think?

Because Foster wasn't sleeping?

Quote:
And according to the FBI interview quotes that you insinuated are fake,

If they're not, it should be a simple matter for you to find them on a site that doesn't allege a massive government conspiracy.

Here's a challenge for you. Find an article published in the mainstream media (print or TV) that mentions the fact that several military pathologists and a military photographer blew the whistle about a possible bullet wound in Ron Brown's head.

Or just try to find mention in the mainstream media of the allegations made by Miquel Rodriguez. As he himself stated (on one of those conspiracy sites you so demean), "I have talked to a number of people from Time Magazine, Newsweek, you know, Nightline, there have been well over a hundred. And this matter is so sealed tight the editors won’t allow it to go to press."

Quote:
She never even mentioned the word depression nor did she (on any other family and friends interviewed that night) see any behavior indicating depression.

Again, why would the doctor ask, unprompted, if Foster was depressed, if this is all true?

Oh. So now you insinuating that what I quoted earlier regarding the response of family and friends to investigators the night of Foster's death is fake too?

Tell you what. Since you apparently won't believe anything but the original senate investigation report ... show me how to acquire that report via the internet? Can you do that? Because if you can't, what are we to think?

 

[BeAChooser]

I smell mold.

I smell someone who isn't really a skeptic. Or interested in the truth. Maybe I smell a member of the Cult of Clinton.

 

[Cleon]

I smell someone who isn't really a skeptic.

A piece of advice: If everyone who disagrees with you isn't a "real skeptic," you're using the word incorrectly.

 

[BeAChooser]

Gosh BAC, all the innuendo you have provided suggests more and more evidene that Foster was indeed worried. Worried about the CIA investigating him, worried about "Top Secret" matters etc.

Gosh, Tricky, all you are doing is proving how gullible you are. Aren't you the least suspicious that the psychiatrist who mentioned Sheila's Foster Anthony's "top secret" comment forgot to mention it to the lead investigator just a few days after Foster's death when he interviewed him? Aren't you the least suspicious that he only remembered it after Sheila changed her story about Foster's depression after that meeting in the Whitehouse where the *suicide* note was discussed? Aren't you a skeptic?

You also suggest that his wife Lisa knew something about this and was herself considering suicide.

I wasn't suggesting. It's public knowledge.

Suggestions that he was setting up a little hidey hole in Switzerland.

I wasn't suggesting. It's a fact that Foster made brief unexplained trips to Geneva.

None of this paints the picture of a man who is cheerful and carefree.

That says nothing about whether Vince Foster was clinically depressed, one way or the other.

But it does suggest that Foster was engaged in something that still hasn't come out.

Considering that your main point has been, for so long, that he couldn't have possibly been depressed,

FALSE. I didn't say that. I said the facts don't support the assertion that he was CLINICALLY depressed. The facts don't support the assertion that he was being medicated FOR DEPRESSION. The facts don't support the assertion that friends and family said he was depressed immediately after his death. Why do you find it necessary to mischaracterize my main point? Is it that you are finding it hard to defend the indefensible? It must be challenging being a member of the Cult of Clinton and having to defend lies and liars.

 

[BeAChooser]

A piece of advice: If everyone who disagrees with you isn't a "real skeptic," you're using the word incorrectly.

A real skeptic doesn't ignore facts that implicate the Clinton administration in misdeeds.

But doing so does suggest one is a member of the Cult of Clinton.

 

[Tricky]

A real skeptic doesn't ignore facts that implicate the Clinton administration in misdeeds.

But doing so does suggest one is a member of the Cult of Clinton.

LOL. Right, BAC. Most of the people here are in the Cult of Clinton. We all are in on the cover-up, along with his wife, Ken Starr, the FBI, his doctor, three investigative teams... and the list goes on.

Ask yourself, BAC. Why is your so-called "evidence" not convincing anyone here? Is it because everyone is in on the conspiracy? Or perhaps consider another, more parsimonious explanation. Perhaps your evidence is not good. Perhaps it sounds like a troofer trying to convince people that the CIA flew the planes into the WTC. Just like you, they can cite reams and reams of "evidence" but each bit requires a larger and larger cabal of people who are "in on it".

These are skeptics here, BAC, not Cult of Clinton. Skeptics don't believe things that make no sense, things that require byzantine, convoluted, highly populated conspiracies. That is why you are not convincing anyone. Not because we are "in on it".

Now I've done what you asked and addressed some of your "evidence". I knew from the beginning that it would do nothing to change your deflagrating hatred for the Clintons, but I thought you deserved at least one direct response to your "evidence". I believe I have made a convincing case that this particular piece of "evidence" is crap. If you doubt me, start a poll. I don't care. I think I'll do something else now. This was real fun.

 

[A'isha]

Well obviously not the whole media or we wouldn't know any of these facts.

Nevertheless, it's a site that alleges a widespread conspiracy among a variety of disparate organizations (despite the lack of incentive to participate in said conspiracy, or to maintain said conspiracy to the present day).

Therefore, it's a conspiracy site.

And apparently you didn't bother to listen to Rodriguez saying that only a few people in the FBI would have to know about the coverup because the rest would just do what they were ordered to do.

Because that's not the issue at hand. And in any case, it's demonstrably false, as seen in the 9/11 case (where Truthers make the same sort of claim).

It's much the same thing that went on in the Ron Brown case, for the record. (By the way, are you going to post on one of those Brown threads like you intimated you would? I'm eager to hear what you claim in that case. )

I'm trying to find a way to contribute to one of your threads in a way that doesn't involve me simply posting "Yeah, pretty much what everyone else said." It isn't easy; your theories were pretty seriously eviscerated there.

But one thing at a time, all right?

False. You are indeed misrepresenting what Rodriguez said. He clearly states that there was little blood at the ORIGINAL location of the body at Marcy Park. He notes that there wasn't blood found under the body when it was moved from that location. He notes that all the EMT's at the scene observed these facts. (For example, I noted earlier ... which you just ignored like a good 9/11 truther ... that Fairfax County emergency medical workers Cory Ashford and Roger Harrison told the FBI that they saw little or no blood, didn't need gloves, didn't get blood on their white uniforms, and didn't see blood on the ground underneath the body after it was moved.

Let's take a look at what Rodriguez said again, using your very own quote from the post I'm responding to, and highlight a few different sentences.

By the way, you know why there was blood by the way. What happened is that by the time they got there when the body was in the position that it was in, there was no virtually no blood anywhere. Um, then there's, there are some conflicting reports about there being blood later on. Later the EMT sees blood, then Haut sees blood. Well the reason is very clear. They lifted the body and pulled it to the top of the ridge, top of the berm, and once they did that blood started flowing fast.

... snip ...

You see so Haut actually sees the body in two positions and people are conveniently using different phrases of Haut to justify whatever result they want. Sure Haut says on one hand there is no blood, then, he says, on the other hand, there is blood. The fact is, a number of people have said there was a small amount where the body was originally found. Later on it's moved to a horizontal position at the top of the berm where it does have some seepage under the body. And then when they put it in the body bag they see, faced in that horizontal position, there's a ten-inch or so bloodstain under the body.

You say "He notes that there wasn't blood found under the body when it was moved from that location." Rodriguez says "The fact is, a number of people have said there was a small amount where the body was originally found."

You say "He notes that all the EMT's at the scene observed these facts." Rodriguez says "Later the EMT sees blood, then Haut sees blood."

It is perfectly obvious to any rational person that had there been an 1 in plus diameter hole in Foster's head having shot himself at the scene, none of those things would have been true.)

So, let me get this clear. Foster was found with very little blood around him and none on him, but according to Rodriguez blood poured from his wound when he was moved and got on Foster's clothes when he was put in a body bag. If he was shot elsewhere, wouldn't the blood have poured out of his wound and smeared on his clothes then (or while he was being transported to the park)? Doesn't the fact that the blood only came out when he was moved after the "official" discovery of the body indicate it hadn't been otherwise moved since the time he was shot?

Rodriguez also stated that blood ONLY came out of Foster's body when it was moved up the hill with the head positioned down slope. Why do you find it necessary to completely mischaracterize what Rodriguez said and ignore what the EMTs said?

I'm not the one mischaracterizing what Rodriguez said. Especially when Rodriguez himself explains what (some of) the EMTs saw and what the later witnesses (including at least one EMT) saw, and how that makes perfect sense in a way that demolishes Knowlton's "no blood therefore Foster was murdered" idiocy.

Are you that desperate to defend the Clintons, ANTPogo?

You got me. I'm really Bill Clinton posting here under an assumed name.

False. This is an outright LIE. Here is what Rodriquez said about the blood from a link I provided earlier (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0307/S00277.htm ):

A New Zealand website reproducing a press release from AIM?

Rodriguez clearly states that (1) the paramedics who first arrived reported seeing little blood, (2) personnel who came later saw a considerable amount, and (3) that blood came from lifting the body, pulling it to the top of the berm, where blood flowed out. He clearly states the body was moved from it's original location before blood in large amounts was observed.

Very good. That is indeed an accurate, if choppy, summation of what Rodriguez said.

Now, as I asked above, please explain something: if Foster was shot at a location different from the one he was found at, what happened to the blood that would have poured out when he was moved from that initial location (like it did when he was moved after he was found), and why did none of it get on Foster at that time (like it did when he was moved after he was found)?

Because Foster wasn't sleeping?

You're getting warmer. Now, what does insomnia and anorexia have to do with depression? In other words, what about insomnia and anorexia might have prompted Foster's doctor to ask him about depression?

Here's a challenge for you. Find an article published in the mainstream media (print or TV) that mentions the fact that several military pathologists and a military photographer blew the whistle about a possible bullet wound in Ron Brown's head.

I thought you weren't going to address the Ron Brown thing here?

But in any case, here you go:

"Controversial investigative journalist Chris Ruddy produced photographs last months purportedly showing a .45 caliber bullet hole in the top of Brown's head. Ruddy quoted a medical examiner at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell, as saying, "The whole thing stinks," and claiming he was overruled in calling for a post-mortem investigation."

(from http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/08/justice.brown/)

Or just try to find mention in the mainstream media of the allegations made by Miquel Rodriguez.

Given your love for sources like Free Republic and AIM, surely a transcript of John Gibson on the Fox News Channel is good enough for you:

"One of these photos may show that neck wound, according to two books published in 1997...

They tell a story of Miguel Rodriguez, who worked for Kenneth Starr in '94 and '95, and he quit after six months. Publicly, we don't know why he quit. Part of the reason why he quit, according to these two books, which I don't know if it's true or not, is because he was denied access to a neck wound photo that he finally got a hold of and had trouble getting the FBI to enlarge it for him, and he had to do it himself. I don't know if that's true or not."


(from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104857,00.html)

Oh. So now you insinuating that what I quoted earlier regarding the response of family and friends to investigators the night of Foster's death is fake too?

I take it that's a "no, I can't find it on a non-conspiracy website", then?

Tell you what. Since you apparently won't believe anything but the original senate investigation report ... show me how to acquire that report via the internet? Can you do that? Because if you can't, what are we to think?

What do you want, the Fiske Report, or Starr's later report?

Take your pick.

 

[BeAChooser]

Why is your so-called "evidence" not convincing anyone here?

Perhaps because most are Obama supporters who would find it inconvenient to acknowledge that Obama has made a really poor choice for Secretary of State?

Perhaps because many are past Clinton supporters ... who really don't want to know the truth about the Clintons because they idolized them.

Regardless of the reason, it won't change any of the facts that I've noted ... and that you are now clearly ignoring ... because facing them would raise questions that would be difficult for a member of the Cult to reconcile.

Starr clearly lied. Why did he lie, Tricky? Why did his top investigator quit charging a coverup? Why do you find it necessary to mischaracterize my position and spin conjecture rather than deal with the facts as they are?

And what in the world did Hillary and Williams discuss both before and after Foster's office was searched the night that Foster died?