Pet Theories

[BeAChooser]

It has been sop long that I have forgotten where I saw it, but someone saw fit to put a picture of Brown's post-mortem head x-rays in a magazine article about the conspiracy.

Here are photos of the wound:

http://www.newsmax.com/rbrown/photo5.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/rbrown/photo6.shtml

Isn't it odd, looking at those photos, that the pathologist who examined the body (Colonel Gormley) would say he saw bone in the hole, not brain matter, and list that as a reason why he concluded Brown died from blunt force trauma ? Because even I, a lowly, non-expert, lay person, can see brain in that hole.

Here are photos of the x-rays:

http://www.newsmax.com/rbrown/photo7.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/rbrown/photo8.shtml

Notice the bone plug INSIDE the brain?

Notice the white specks that Colonel Cogswell and Cyril Wecht say are a "lead snowstorm", a clear indication of a bullet wound?

Sure did look like a bullet wound except for one thing. No bullet. No bullet fragments. No anomolies in any bone structure away from the entry wound. And the hole looked larger to me than a .45 wound.

Are you a forensic pathologist? An expert in bullet wounds?

Dr. Martin Fackler, former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory, said "It's round as hell. ... That's unusual except for a gunshot wound." He also said brain matter was visible. "They didn't do an autopsy. My God." he said. He was surprised that the hole was described on Gormley's report as "approximately .5 inches." Using calibrated instruments, he noted it was somewhat smaller than .5 inches, "and a little bit small for a .45-caliber bullet hole." Fackler explained that the skull can be slightly "elastic" and bullet holes can be slightly larger or smaller than the actual bullet caliber. He said the hole was more consistent with a .40-caliber or 10 mm bullet, like those widely used by law enforcement agencies.

Why would you expect to see the bullet in the x-ray? You realize they did not look for an exit wound. As to bullet fragments, what are the white specks? Colonel Cogswell, considered at the time to be the best pathologist in the Air Force where gunshot was concerned, says those are metallic fragments (a lead snowstorm) from a bullet. Cyril Wecht said the identification of almost half a dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver- colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the wound "suggest metallic fragments".

There are a lot of metal tubes in an aircraft.

Then isn't it odd that Colonel Cogswell whose job it was to find the item that caused the wound didn't find it. He found nothing to explain it. And Gormley acknowledged that no piece of the aircraft was found to explain the hole. Furthermore, neither Cogswell, who was involved in more than 100 plane crash investigations, nor Hause (who was present at the examination and said it looked like a bullet wound and who had been at AFIP for 5 years), remember finding a similar wound in a plane crash victim's head. Both said that while parts of the plane could certainly pierce the skull during a crash, the resulting hole probably would be left jagged or irregular after the object entered and exited the skull. That hole is certainly not jagged or irregular.

I seriously doubt that there was a suicidal assasin on board, and I would surely not like trying to parachute out of an aircraft low over mountains.

You are getting the cart before the horse. Usually investigators determine if there was indeed a murder before figuring out the how and why. In this cause, that would require an autopsy which, curiously enough, the White House, JCS and Commerce Department forbade.

And there is no requirement that whoever shot Brown (if that's a bullet wound) have been on board the plane. If the plotters spoofed the pilot into flying into a mountain, then they knew roughly where it would come down. They'd could easily have had someone reach the crash site before rescuers arrived and *make sure* Brown was dead. What a coincidence that there was an Associated Press report that three Americans were already there when the first officially acknowledged rescuers reached the site. Hmmmm?

And if the assassin was on the plane (the rear door of the plane was found open at the crash site, by the way), why would it be necessary for him to parachute low over the mountains? First of all, until the plane reached the mountain it hit, it was not flying over mountains. Second, it's altitude was not low until towards the very end of the flight. Third, you can bail out of a plane that's a couple thousand feet up with no problem. Fourth, can you tell us what caused the two airports and an AWACS to lose voice and transponder contact with the plane when it was still 7-8 miles from the crash site? Now try to make your scenario consistent with just "accidentally" hitting the mountain.

One more thing. Does your screenname ... leftysergeant indicate your handedness or your political leanings? Just curious ...

 

[AgeGap]

I can prove that every car manufacturer in the world and is conspiring to drive (no pun intended) the price of automoblles up as they are all basically one company. A vast monopoly. I do not know what they are doing with the profits but I suspect they are using them to fund the NWO. Due to the fact I have not finished with a smiley I must be making a serious point.

 

[leftysergeant]

I'm still trying to figure out what sort of bullet disintegrates into such small irregular pieces. Doesn't look like there is even enough of it based on 40mm rounds that I have seen shot through ballistic gelatine and bone. To produce that many fragments and still exit, the bullet would have produced a very large, unavoidable exit wound.

 

[Taffer]

<crickets>

Gotta love arguments from silence...

 

[BeAChooser]

I'm still trying to figure out what sort of bullet disintegrates into such small irregular pieces. Doesn't look like there is even enough of it based on 40mm rounds that I have seen shot through ballistic gelatine and bone.

Are you referring to what they termed the "lead snowstorm"? Well those don't represent a "disintegration" of the bullet.

To produce that many fragments and still exit, the bullet would have produced a very large, unavoidable exit wound.

I asked you whether you are a forensic pathologist familiar with gunshot wounds? Unless you are, I think you are talking way outside your field of expertise, whatever that might be. You see, every single forensic pathologist in the nation who has made a public statement about the case and evidence, except one (Dickerson, head of AFIP ... and I can prove that individual is a liar), is on record saying it "looked" like a bullet wound and Brown should have been autopsied. I challenge you to post the name of a single pathologist anywhere in the nation (except Dickerson) who has said anything else. Indeed, Colonel Cogswell gave talks on mistakes in pathology at conferences and one of the cases he presented was this. I doubt he got away with that if he didn't know what he was talking about.

Now why is it "lefty's" fear a Brown exhumation and autopsy so much? Any clues?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Ngh. I hate to break it to you, but a bullet entering the brain would exit out again. See: JFK.

Secondly, you just ad hom'd, as you are saying that he fears an exhumation from his handle - it may be he simply doesn't think it's needed.

 

[BeAChooser]

I hate to break it to you, but a bullet entering the brain would exit out again.

ROTFLOL! What made you think I thought the bullet should remain in the brain? The fact that I said they didn't find an exit wound? I hate to break it to you, but they even didn't look for an exit wound.

Secondly, you just ad hom'd, as you are saying that he fears an exhumation from his handle - it may be he simply doesn't think it's needed.

I hate to break it to you, I was sort of joking with his handle. I asked him what it means and he didn't say so I just observed that there's a tendency for "lefty's" to not want the Ron Brown case investigated. By the way, he's not qualified (unless he claims to be a forensic pathologist and I rather doubt he is going to do that) to *think* an autopsy was/is not needed. The real experts when it comes to such things ... forensic pathologists with experience in gunshot ... seem to think it is needed. A whole bunch of really fine ones have said so. You, of course, are welcome to accept my challenge and name a pathologist anywhere in the world who disagrees with that assessment although don't bother quoting Dickerson because I'll prove he's a liar.

 

[Gravy]

Notice the bone plug INSIDE the brain?

I am shocked! Ron Brown sustained a head wound when his plane hit a mountain? The odds against that happening are astronomically high. Or astrologically high, I forget which.

Notice the white specks that Colonel Cogswell and Cyril Wecht say are a "lead snowstorm", a clear indication of a bullet wound?

Feel free to point out any other x-ray that shows such damage from a bullet, with no other fragments and no exit wound.

You realize they did not look for an exit wound.

Um, feel free to point out the exit wound on the x-rays.

Cyril Wecht said the identification of almost half a dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver- colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the wound "suggest metallic fragments".

Where could those have come from? Everyone knows that airplanes would never get off the ground if there was metal in them. Why else would airports use metal detectors?

 

[leftysergeant]

Interesting that the metal flecks arounf the entry wound are dull grey, rather than bronze. Based on this, the bullet would have been lead, probably a semi-wadcutter.

Every semi-wadcutter or lead round-nosed bullet that I have seen fired into ballistic gelatine either mushrooms or passes through with little deformation.

Thus, I would expect to see in the x-rays either a spent bullet, grossly flattened, or an enormous exit wound, perhaps noticeable splitting of the skull around suture lines, obvious fractures of bones to the front of the head.

I can't make any of these out in the x-ray.

Oh, in spite of my being a little left of John Edwards, I do own and regularly fire more firearms of different calibers than most people have ever fired. I go through about 2-3 thousand rounds of various types of ammunition in a year in my own weapons and a few hundred more from weapons that others bring to the range where I shoot on Ft Lewis. It's a regular museum, and we like to compare notes a lot. Several of my friends who are into hand-loading their own special-purpose cartridges actually go to the trouble of testing them in ballistic gelatin. So I am speaking here from personal experience.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Notice the bone plug INSIDE the brain?

I am shocked! Ron Brown sustained a head wound when his plane hit a mountain? The odds against that happening are astronomically high. Or astrologically high, I forget which.

Astronomically high? Well apparently not ... at least to sustain an injury that looked to half a dozen top-notch pathologists like a perfectly round bullet wound. Remember, Colonel Cogswell and Lt. Colonel Hause said they'd never seen anything like it, and they had lots of experience with plane crashes.

What are the odds that every single pathologist (except one ... who I can prove lied about the facts to the public) who has looked at the case and made a statement would say it looked like a bullet wound and that Brown should have been autopsied ... but that he wasn't? Probably close to zero.

What are the odds that the examining pathologist, Colonel Gormley, would officially conclude that Brown died of blunt force trauma because no brain matter was visible in the wound and that the x-rays taken during the examination showed no trace of a bullet injury, when even a layperson, like myself, can clearly see brain matter in the hole and the indications that the other pathologists in the case say is a "lead snowstorm"? Zero?

Note that when confronted with the photo of the wound on live TV, Gormley indicated he was mistaken. Mistaken? Lt Colonel Hause, another pathologist who was there that day and viewed the wound, said "what was immediately below the surface of the hole was just brain." How could Gormley have been soooooo wrong? What are the odds, Gravy?

What are the odds that the original photos and x-rays of Brown's head AND the second set of x-rays (the ones that sworn testimony says Gormley tampered with to eliminate the lead snowstorm) would disappear from a locked safe at AFIP that only a few people had access to ... and that the government wouldn't even raise an eyebrow or investigate?

What were the odds that the first phase of the normal Air Force post crash investigation ... the phase specifically charged with finding the cause ... would be skipped? They must be close to zero since in every crash before that ... except one, and that was a clear cut case of friendly fire in Iraq where the cause was obvious ... they didn't skip the first phase.

What are the odds that the maintenance chief who was in charge of the beacons at the airport (remember, a portable one went missing before the crash) would commit suicide (by shooting himself in the chest with a shotgun, no less) over a failed love affair just 2 days after the crash and before he could be interviewed? How many times has that sort of thing happened ... where there hasn't been foul play?

What are the odds that Aviation Week Magazine would observe that a beacon of the sort that just happened to go missing could be used to spoof a plane into flying exactly the sort of approach that Brown's plane flew?

What are the odds that two airports and an AWACS would simultaneously lose voice and transponder contact with the plane when it was still 7-8 miles from the crash site ... especially if the plane just "accidently" ran into the mountain?

What are the odds that Reno's DOJ would conduct a "thorough" investigation and not interview even ONE of the whistleblowers in this case?

What are the odds that the VIP on this plane would be a central figure in Chinagate and the campaign finance scandal who was days away from being indicted for a laundry list of very serious crimes ... and that sworn testimony would indicate he'd recently informed the President that he was going to turn state's evidence to save himself, as well as his wife and son who had already been indicted on similar charges?

So don't try to lecture me about probability and likelihood.

Quote:
Notice the white specks that Colonel Cogswell and Cyril Wecht say are a "lead snowstorm", a clear indication of a bullet wound?

Feel free to point out any other x-ray that shows such damage from a bullet, with no other fragments and no exit wound.

Unfortunately, Brown's x-rays have disappeared from a locked safe. Isn't that fascinating? And you aren't listening. They did not even look for an exit wound. Even Gormley has now admitted this.

Quote:
You realize they did not look for an exit wound.

Um, feel free to point out the exit wound on the x-rays.

Which x-rays? The ones that are now missing? Besides, if you look at the position of the wound in relation to Brown's neck (the hole is on the top of Brown's head), one might suspect there wouldn't be an exit wound ... that the bullet is still lodged somewhere in Brown's abdomen.

If you insist on debating this, Gravy, at least get your facts right so you don't look like a 9/11 *truther*.

Quote:
Cyril Wecht said the identification of almost half a dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver- colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the wound "suggest metallic fragments".

Where could those have come from? Everyone knows that airplanes would never get off the ground if there was metal in them. Why else would airports use metal detectors?

Have you switched to just trying to be funny? Or are you so desperate to spin this that you'll use any sort of silly logic since obviously the facts aren't going to do you any good?

 

[BeAChooser]

Thus, I would expect to see in the x-rays either a spent bullet, grossly flattened, or an enormous exit wound, perhaps noticeable splitting of the skull around suture lines, obvious fractures of bones to the front of the head. I can't make any of these out in the x-ray.

If you want to pretend like you're Mr. CSI, go ahead. I'll laugh.

I think I'll rely on the folks that actually have degrees in forensic pathology and years of experience with bullet wounds and plane crashes. And ALL OF THEM, except the head of AFIP who I can prove lied about the facts in the case and the views of his subordinates, say it looked like a bullet wound and Brown should have been autopsied. So would you object to an exhumation of Brown's body and an autopsy by folks unconnected to the government with the whistleblowing pathologists in attendance?

Oh, in spite of my being a little left of John Edwards

I suspected as much. Did you vote for Clinton in 96?

 

[JimBenArm]

I'm curious, BeAChooser. What does Mr. Brown's family have to say about this? Are they screaming for an investigation, or is it just some holdover anti-Clinton nutjobs who display all the characteristics of 9/11 deniers?

Just askin'.

 

[Hokulele]

Is it just me, or does the argument:

Looks like a bullet wound = Bullet wound

remind anyone of:

Sounds like an explosion = Explosion?

 

[T.A.M.]

Just found this video, posted at dabble.com, by Chris Bornag, who must be MagZ...take a look.

http://dabble.com/node/16986750

TAM

 

[BeAChooser]

What does Mr. Brown's family have to say about this?

Well first of all, the Brown family didn't know about any of this until the military pathologists and photographer blew the whistle about a year later. Until then, all they had to go on was a report from the government that left out almost all the facts I've noted. A report that contained the conclusion that Colonel Gormley admitted on live TV was "mistaken".

After they learned about it, there were apparently two camps.

One was the wife and son (Michael), who had already been indicted for some of the same crimes that Ron Brown was about to be indicted. Naturally, they walked a tight rope. If they made a big stink, the Clinton administration was liable to retaliate and see them prosecuted to the full extent ... which might mean prison. So I suspect they made a deal. They kept quiet and said nothing, and in return the charges were dropped against the wife, and Michael was given a plea bargain that amounted to a slap on the wrist. (Speaking of which, do you know the DNC hired Michael shortly afterwards and he's been working for them ever since?)

The other camp was represented by Brown's daughter, Tracy Brown. See http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/4/13/02523. Now she claimed that after she and her family learned of the allegations (on the internet), she and her family met with an independent forensic pathologist (note, this person remains unnamed to this day). She says they looked at the x-rays and photographs and that this unnamed pathologist told them, in her words, that the wound "is not a bullet wound. It's short, it doesn't go anywhere, there's no exit wound, there's no bullet in his body, there are no metal fragments. So in my opinion, it's not a bullet wound."

You see the problem? That description doesn't fit the facts. No one looked for an exit wound and they didn't do an autopsy so how could they know there was no bullet in the body? You say the x-rays would show that? Which ones? The first set (what was on the internet) or the second (which presumably went in the official report and which sworn testimony says were manipulated)? The ones they'd find on the internet only showed the head. So did they get access to the originals that AFIP seized from Cogswell and Janoski? Frankly, I don't think Tracy got to look at the official x-rays (either the first or second set) because they went missing from a locked safe at AFIP soon after words.

Personally, I'd like to know the name of this pathologist that is such an expert that he's qualified to contradict two of the top pathologists in the country when it comes to gunshot (Cogswell and Wecht). They say the x-ray on the internet from the first set (which was saved only because it was in the hands of the public before the controversy broke) does indeed show metal fragments ... which even you and I can easily see is true. And note that those fragments are well inside the skull of Tracy's dad ... around the region of the eye socket, again contrary to the claim the wound goes nowhere.

Notice that Tracy doesn't even have the story about how those photographs got put on the internet correct. She says "So without getting into who stole the photographs in the first place and distributed them". Sorry, but no one stole these photos of Brown's head. Who gave her that idea? She might be smarter to ask how the originals of the photos and x-rays disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP and why no one seems to care.

And by the way. Do you know what Ron Brown's family got as compensation for his death? Well the records show that the families of the victims received as much as 14 million dollars each. A few million might buy a lot of silence, especially if you knew the murderers were still out there and willing to go to any lengths (the dad's case serves as an example) to keep the truth from coming out about certain things.

Are they screaming for an investigation, or is it just some holdover anti-Clinton nutjobs who display all the characteristics of 9/11 deniers?

Actually, the only ones displaying the characteristics of 9/11 deniers here are the ones who clearly don't know the facts in the case and who refuse to honestly debate the facts when they are presented to them. Instead, they seek to hide behind woo and ignore what the experts in the matter actually said.

 

[BeAChooser]

Looks like a bullet wound = Bullet wound

remind anyone of:

Sounds like an explosion = Explosion?

What you are pushing is a strawman. I and the pathologists I quote are not saying it definitely was a bullet wound. What was said is that it looked enough like a bullet wound to warrant an autopsy. What was said is that there are enough other unexplained and suspicious facts in the case to suggest it might have been an assassination.

The two cases are also not similar for another reason.

In the Brown case, REAL experts in the subject (ALL of them, in fact, who have made statements about the case, except one ... and I can show he lied about the facts and the opinions of the other pathologists) say the wound looked enough like a bullet wound that Ron Brown should have been autopsied. And you'd be a fool to simply dismiss the consensus of real experts on a given subject where they clearly are experts.

In the second case, the folks saying it sounds like an explosion and therefore it is an explosion are indeed saying that. And NONE of them is an expert on the subject or quoting experts on the subject.

Now would you like to try a more honest and rational argument?

 

[Hokulele]

What you are pushing is a strawman. I and the pathologists I quote are not saying it definitely was a bullet wound. What was said is that it looked enough like a bullet wound to warrant an autopsy. What was said is that there are enough other unexplained and suspicious facts in the case to suggest it might have been an assassination.

The two cases are also not similar for another reason.

In the Brown case, REAL experts in the subject (ALL of them, in fact, who have made statements about the case, except one ... and I can show he lied about the facts and the opinions of the other pathologists) say the wound looked enough like a bullet wound that Ron Brown should have been autopsied. And you'd be a fool to simply dismiss the consensus of real experts on a given subject where they clearly are experts.

In the second case, the folks saying it sounds like an explosion and therefore it is an explosion are indeed saying that. And NONE of them is an expert on the subject or quoting experts on the subject.

Now would you like to try a more honest and rational argument?

Fine.

Is it just me, or does the statement:

Looks like a bullet wound = Must be proven it isn't a bullet wound, and I will assume it could be one, as it supports my pet thoery.

remind anyone of:

Sounds like an explosion = Must be proven it isn't an explosion, and I will assume it could be one, as it supports my pet theory.

or:

Looks like a controlled demolition = Must be proven it isn't a CD, and I will assume it could be one, as it supports my pet theory.

Any way, this seems to be a bit of a mountain/molehill situation, as I am sure that even if an autopsy were ordered, and it was found to be blunt force trauma, people with an agenda would still find other aspects of the investigation to be suspicious. And yes, I did read your exchange with DR, and find his explanations much more plausible.

 

[cyborg]

I don't believe in conspiracies - I believe in spontaneous absurdities.

 

[BeAChooser]

Any way, this seems to be a bit of a mountain/molehill situation, as I am sure that even if an autopsy were ordered, and it was found to be blunt force trauma, people with an agenda would still find other aspects of the investigation to be suspicious.

Perhaps, but not me. I'd be more than willing to accept their verdict as long as the autopsy wasn't done by the AFIP and as long as the pathologists who blew the whistle (Cogswell, Hause, Parsons, Wecht) were allowed to observe the autopsy to ensure it was honest. Everything else I've mentioned is admitedly circumstantial ... but competent forensic pathologists using state of the art techniques should have no trouble telling whether the hole in Brown's head was caused by a bullet or not ... even 15 years later. And that's not circumstantial. That's direct evidence of a crime or no crime. If they say it wasn't caused by a bullet, that resolves the question as far as I'm concerned. But until they do, no amount of illogical spin on your part will convince me there isn't one. Now I wonder if YOU would be willing to accept the results of an autopsy if it showed there was a bullet wound and bring everyone involved to justice. Would you then be willing to put folks like Clinton under oath in the matter?

And yes, I did read your exchange with DR, and find his explanations much more plausible.

I sort of figured you would. Bet you voted for Clinton, too. ROTFLOL!

 

[BeAChooser]

I'll be gone for a few days. So take the time to come up with some good arguments against the Ron Brown allegations while I'm gone. Dig deep. I promise to respond to each and every one when I return ... with facts, sound logic and derision (if it's deserved ).