Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Are you denying the fact that a military photographer and about half a dozen highly regarded forensic pathologists, all of whom were experts in gunshot wounds, publically stated that Ron Brown had what appeared to be a gunshot wound to the head and he should have been autopsied? Yes or no?
I deny your often-repeated and unproven claim that this is so.
LOL! So you claim that it's unproven that a military photographer and about half a dozen highly regarded forensic pathologists stated Brown appeared to have what looked like a gunshot wound to the head and should have been autopsied? I see.
Well, then you must think all of the linked, sourced material listed in the following post by me, for instance,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5870757&postcount=74
was nothing but lies? Right? Isn't that exactly what you are claiming with your statement, Chaos? That you think Christopher Ruddy, The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the Washington Weekly, Carl Limbaucher, Wesley Phelan, Larry Klayman, Judicial Watch, and George Putnam simply fabricated those quotes by the military photographer and pathologists? That they are all liars? Right?
But if that is true, then how do you explain what other articles and statements say? Because they certainly suggest that a photographer and pathologists were alleging what Ruddy, Limbaucher, Phelan, Klayman and Putnam quoted them saying in my post.
For example ...
http://www.cashill.com/ronbrown/time_for_obama_brown.htm
In early December 1997, after eighteen months of successful damage control by the White House, the black community in Chicago finally learned of the anomalies in the death of Ron Brown.
… snip …
As reported in the Chicago Independent Bulletin, a group of black pastors, led by Rev. Hiram Crawford of the Israel Methodist Community Church on Chicago’s south side, “blasted local black legislators for their apparent silence in this matter.”
… snip …
As the Bulletin article reported accurately, Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell, a doctor and deputy medical examiner with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), had gone public with his concerns.
“When you get something that appears to be a homicide, that should bring everything to a screeching halt," Cogswell was quoted as saying of Brown’s death.
Cogswell was referring to the “.45-inch inwardly beveling circular hole in top of [Brown’s] head,” which he described as “essentially the description of a 45-caliber gunshot wound.” Cogswell argued that at the very least the wound should have prompted an autopsy, but it did not.
So troubled were the Chicago pastors by what they saw as a “conspiracy to divert justice” that they called for the impeachment of President Clinton along with the opening of an investigation into Brown’s death.
You must be claiming that Jack Cashill also fabricated quotes by Cogswell and that the Chicago Independent Bulletin did not report the quote by Cogswell that Cashill claims they reported? But if Cashill said something false, don't you think the CIB would have demanded a retraction? Do you have any evidence AT ALL that the Chicago Independent Bulletin complained to or about Cashill? Hmmmm?
Or take this statement from the same Cashill article:
The following day, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post did what the mainstream media routinely did during the Clinton years—attacked the president’s critics.
“Cogswell never actually examined the body,” Kurtz snickered about Cogswell, who had covered the Croatian end of the crash. Kurtz then added with preposterous certainty, “There definitely was no bullet because there was no exit wound.”
Now why would Kurtz say that if Cogswell hadn't stated what Ruddy and others say he said? I thought Kurtz was supposed to be a respected journalist … who verifies his sources. Are you saying he's not? Because unless you are again claiming that Cashill completely fabricated that quote by Kurtz, then Kurtz must be incompetent if what you claim is true? Why wouldn't Kurtz have sued Cashill or demanded a retraction if he was misquoted? Can you provide any evidence of that? Hmmmmm?
Also, from the Cashill article:
On Christmas Eve, veteran activist and former comedian Dick Gregory staged a protest and prayer vigil at the AFIP headquarters in Washington that culminated in the TV-friendly gesture of wrapping yellow crime scene tape around the area.
“We are not going to allow this to pass,” Gregory vowed. “There is very strong evidence the AFIP found a gunshot wound on Brown’s head and decided to cover-up this evidence.”
You must be claiming Gregory never said this … that Cashill lied about that too? This Cashill must be an awful guy, lying about everyone's statements. But why is Gregory still hosting articles on his own website about what it's alleged Janoski and Cogswell said (for example,
http://www.dickgregory.com/dick/7_ronbrown.html ,
http://www.dickgregory.com/dick/8_ronbrown1.html ,
http://www.dickgregory.com/dick/11_ronbrown4.html ). Why would he do that rather than sue Cashill if Cashill misrepresented him? Hmmmmmm?
Something about your beliefs just doesn't smell right, Chaos. Because you're claiming lots of people have cause to sue Cashill but none have.
And you must also think I'm a liar. There's no way around that because, as I stated in
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5870757&postcount=74 (you read that thread before making your sweeping claim, right?), I've seen and posted here at JREF a video of CPO Janoski and Lt Colonel Cogswell (the military photographer and one of the military forensic pathologists in question) saying on camera what they are quoted saying by Ruddy and the other sources that you claim are lying. So you have to think I'm lying about that.
But then how do you explain the fact that on the JREF thread where I actually posted that video, here …
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3904725&postcount=78 , there were lots of *skeptics* like you busy trying to discredit my assertions and embarrass me, yet not one poster … NOT EVEN ONE … pointed out that the video I linked didn't exist or claimed it didn't say exactly what I claimed? They just ignored it.
Were my opponents on that thread just unobservant, Chaos? Are you claiming that beachnut, for example, to whom I specifically posted that video and then called a liar for essentially claiming what you are now claiming, wouldn't have pointed out immediately that my link to the video didn't work or say what I claimed, if it hadn't existed or said what I claimed? Hmmmmm?
And notice maxpower1227 was on that thread (calling me a "deranged" "loon"). So I specifically pointed out the video to him. You think he is such a poor debater that he didn't catch what you seem to be claiming was an obvious lie?
How about yodaluver28? I specifically challenged him regarding the Cogswell/Janoski video too … and asked if he was too lazy or too partisan to look at it. You don't think that would have motivated him to catch me in what you seem to be claiming was a transparent and easily disproven lie? Really? If so, I don't think you know human nature.
And let's not forget Alt+F4 and JoeElison. I pointed out that video to both of them on that thread, as well. And they didn't catch me in what would have been an easily proven lie either. They ignored the video, too.
And there were other posters present on that thread … some that are here on this thread. Sez Me, for example. And ANTPogo. And Upchurch. Are you suggesting that they are such a poor debaters, or so inattentive, that they wouldn't have jumped at reporting an obvious lie by me … if I had indeed lied as you seem to be claiming? They don't seem like poor debaters who would pass up the opportunity to embarrass me? But then that's my opinion.
Now surely you are not suggesting ALL the above posters were so close minded that they didn't even watch the video I linked? After all, I was just satisfying their demands for … *evidence*. Of course they watched it. Right? And if they watched it, and it didn't show what I claimed, don't you think they would have immediately pointed that out and gloated? Or if the link I supplied didn't work, don't you think they'd have pointed THAT out? Yet they didn't. How do you explain that?
Since they didn't, I think folks can safely assume that the video existed and said exactly what I claimed. It corroborated the accuracy of the quotes in the sources for both Janoski and Cogswell. And if those quotes are accurate, isn't it likely that the quotes of the other pathologists and experts who were quoted in those articles by Ruddy and others are equally accurate? Seems logical. In fact, I recall that Janoski and Cogswell mentioned what some of the other experts said in that no longer working video … just what Ruddy and the others claimed they said.
So you see, Chaos, simply and very straightforward logic shows that your implied assertion that I'm a liar about the Cogswell/Janoski video evidence just doesn't pass the smell test, even if the video in question has long since been taken down from youtube.
You'll also note in post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3904725&postcount=78 , that I claimed Larry Elder, a noted radio host, had interviewed several of the parties in question, including Dr Cyril Wecht (a widely respected civilian forensic pathologist). I said he interviewed Wecht on TV on December 31, 1997 when he was the guest host of CNBC's Rivera Live! You calling that claim by me a lie, too? Hmmmmmm? I tell you what, why don't you contact Larry Elder. If I'm lying about him doing that or the view expressed by Wecht, I'm sure he'd be eager to set the record straight. But somehow I don't think you'll do that.
Quote:
Are you denying the fact that Miquel Rodriguez, the man Ken Star picked to head his investigation of the death of Vince Foster, publically stated that the investigation was a sham and that he saw photographic evidence that Foster was shot in the neck, totally contradicting the official story? Yes or no?
I deny your often-repeated and unproven claim that this is so.
Here you go again. You really think I can't and haven't backed up that claim here at JREF? Here, the following links have been previously posted to this forum by me (note what it states):
http://www.aim.org/special-report/death-of-vince-foster-part-1/
http://www.aim.org/special-report/death-of-vince-foster-part-2/
http://www.aim.org/special-report/death-of-vince-foster-part-3/
http://www.aim.org/special-report/death-of-vince-foster-part-4/
You are about to hear the voice of Miquel Rodriguez, a United States Attorney working in Sacramento California.
Mr. Rodriguez resigned from Kenneth Starr’s office of Independent Counsel in the spring of 1995, when Kenneth Starr’s staff frustrated his investigation. Mr. Rodriguez resigned because he refused to join the others in covering up Foster’s murder. … snip … What you will hear are actual excerpts from some of these conversations. Only the voice of Mr. Rodriguez is heard, to protect confidential sources.
… snip …
Narrator
There never really was an investigation into Vincent Foster’s death. There was only the appearance of an investigation. Park Police investigator Cheryl Braun, admitted in testimony that the determination that the death was a suicide was made prior to her going up and looking at the body. The Fiske and Starr investigations were result-oriented. Miquel Rodriguez resigned because he would not be part of an investigation with a forgone conclusion.
Miquel Rodriguez:
It’s ah, the result is being dictated by a lot higher, um, authority than I think people really understand or appreciate and certainly more than I ever appreciated. What with this whole notion ah, you know, of, of doing an honest investigation, um, you know, you know, it’s, it’s laughable.
I knew what the result was going to be, because I was told what the result was going to be from the get-go. And then there’s all so much fluff, and a look-good job, it’s just, this is all, all so much nonsense and I knew the result before the investigation began.
That’s why I left. I don’t do investigations like that ? do investigations to justify results. There’s a ? again, I don’t think they can go back to the fact that, and it’s just a fact for me because it was told to me, the result here has already been determined. It was determined long ago. Fiske himself indicated that he had determined the result before he had ever released a report. And that’s the way all the investigations have resulted ? its end oriented. Again, you know, I left for a very good reason. The results, you know, were dictated and I don’t do that kind of work.
… snip …
Miquel Rodriguez:
Both EMTs that responded to the park. Both observed trauma to the neck. I saw pictures that clearly indicate to me that there is trauma on the neck. I believe it’s a puncture wound on the neck.
There is really nothing that is consistent with him committing that kind of violent act at all.
So are you claiming AIM is falsely representing what Miquel Rodriguez said? Are you? That they fabricated his voice for that audio file they linked at that site? Hmmmmm? Wow! Fabricating his voice even … and he didn't complain?
Quote:
Are you denying the fact that the man who wrote the articles of impeachment against Nixon is on the record stating that "Clinton's abuse of the IRS was far worse than Nixon's, and that Clinton should have been impeached a second time" and that "n his conduct of the office of the president of the United States, William J. Clinton has given or received bribes"? Yes or no?
I deny your often-repeated and unproven claim that this is so.
Didn't you see the post where I had linked the following official government document, which includes a memo that Jerome Zeifman, the former chief counsel of the House Judiciary Committee in 1973 and 1974 (the democrat who wrote the articles of impeachment against Nixon), wrote to Bob Barr, Representative from the State of Georgia on November 18, 1998?
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-105hhrg53367/pdf/CHRG-105hhrg53367.pdf
I am submitting for your consideration the text of my recommendations for a proposed Article of Impeachment against President Clinton for bribery, which follows:
BRIBERY
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, William J. Clinton has given or received bribes with respect to one or more of the following:
(1) Approving, condoning, or acquiescing in the surreptitious payment of bribes for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of Webster Hubbell as a witness or potential witness in criminal proceedings;
(2) Approving, condoning, or acquiescing in the use of political influence by Vernon Jordan in obtaining employment for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of Monica Lewinsky as a witness or po- tential witness in civil or criminal proceedings; and
(3) Approving, condoning or acquiescence in the receipt of bribes in connec- tion with the issuance of an executive order which had the effect of giving Indonesia a monopoly on the sale of certain types of coal.
Are you really claiming that official government document, found on the website of the US Government Printing Office, is a lie? Or that this link was just fabricated by me? Hmmmmm?
Quote:
Are you denying the fact that handwritten FBI interview notes from May 9, 1994 show that Lisa Foster told the investigators Vince was "fighting" a "prescription" for sleeping pills dispensed several months earlier for insomnia, but the typed FD-302 report of the interview states in the equivalent location that Foster had been "fighting depression"? Yes or no?
I deny your often-repeated and unproven claim that this is so.
I can't count the number of times I posted a link to the handwritten notes and typed FD-302 form to proved the above claim on this forum. This link: http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster...or_Depression/prescription_for_depression.htm . Now it's no longer working but again, NOT ONCE in all the times I posted that link to this forum and ask my detractors to comment did ANY JREF *skeptic* respond that the link didn't work or didn't say exactly what I claimed. Not once.
For example, I posted it on this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5185169#post5185169 . And I posted it on this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4687393&postcount=132 . And I posted it here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4227224&postcount=110 . And here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4227244&postcount=111 . And here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4103528&postcount=1 . And here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4004290&postcount=33.
I could go on and on. And NOT ONE of those JREF *skeptics* to whom those posts were addressed responded that the link I posted didn't work or claimed that the link said something other than what I claimed. No, they just acted like … well, you know what … and ignored it. But if you search, you can still find reference to what I claimed.
Christopher Ruddy mentioned this in his book: http://books.google.com/books?id=qT...&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false . You can do a search for "fighting" and you'll find the exact passage.
But then I know you claim Ruddy is lying about everything. So here, how about Dan Moldea, who also wrote a book (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=3232 ) and in it noted that:
The handwritten FBI interview notes of the widow state that Foster had been "fighting" taking a "prescription" for sleeping pills ("Restoril," generic name "tamazepam," a benzodiazepine) dispensed several months earlier for this same insomnia (according to his widow, Foster was concerned the sleeping pills could be addictive), but the typed FD-302 report of the interview states in the equivalent location that Foster had been "fighting depression," a significant alteration in wording by the FBI, apparently made to buttress the official claims that Foster was depressed.
Is he lying too? I think we are starting to see a pattern here, Chaos. You just won't believe anyone or any logic that challenges your firmly held beliefs about Clinton, will you? 
Quote:
Are you denying the fact that three well known handwriting experts have gone on record stating the so-called suicide note, that Clinton officials claim to have found in Foster's briefcase days after it had been searched in front of Park Police and nothing was found, is an obvious forgery? Yes or no?
I deny your often-repeated and unproven claim that this is so.
I already linked a post on this forum that specifically dealt with the so-called suicide note issue. Here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6467666&postcount=655 . And in that link you will find an article by Reed Irvine of AIM, http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/1995/08a.html , that describes the conclusion of Sgt Larry Lockhart, the handwriting expert that the government originally used to authenticate the "suicide" note as having been written by Foster, after Lockhart was shown (in a blind test) better images of characters from the note in question than what the government provided and asked to compare it with samples from another source. And he concluded that the note and samples were "very possibly" or "probably" written by different persons. Thus contradicting his original conclusion.
Also in my previous post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6467666&postcount=655 , I linked a source that provides the statements of the three widely recognized, board certified handwriting experts who evaluated the so-called "suicide" note authenticity. Here's that linK again, http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/NOTE/note.html . And as noted in my post, the conclusion from their work was reported by Reuter's and published in a UK paper. Here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/foster-suicide-note-was-a-forgery-say-experts-1579504.html
26 October 1995
Washington (Reuter) - Someone forged the torn-up suicide note that was discovered after White House lawyer Vincent Foster was found with a fatal gunshot wound, a group of handwriting experts said yesterday.
Three handwriting specialists presented analysis at a news conference of the note found in Foster's briefcase after the deputy White House counsel was found dead on 20 July 1993 in a park near Washington. They said it appeared the note was not written by Foster but was a forgery.
… snip …
The handwriting specialists, former New York police department homicide expert Vincent Scalice, Oxford University manuscript expert Reginald Alton, and Boston private investigator Ronald Rice, said comparisons with a letter Foster had written had enough differences in style and letters to conclude the suicide note was not written by Foster.
And you just ignored all that, didn't you, Chaos. I think given all the above, we can established that you are 100% wrong. My claims are proven and by credible sources. You are now shown to be unreliable.
