Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

TWA Flight 800 - Someone Has Finally Talked!
WorldNetDaily ^ | January 31, 2002 | Reed Irvine

Posted on 01/31/2002 5:49:54 PM PST by VectoRama

Someone has finally talked!

By Reed Irvine
© 2000

Those who accept the government's claim that the crash of TWA Flight 800 was caused by a fuel-tank explosion dismiss the evidence that the plane was shot down accidentally by missiles launched in a Navy exercise off the Long Island coast. They say that such an accident could not have been covered up because a lot of Navy personnel would have known about it, and some of them would have talked.

One of them has finally done so. He recently said in an interview that I recorded that he was on the deck of a Navy submarine very close to the crash site and saw TWA 800 shot down.

He was brought to my attention by an acquaintance of his who told me that this retired Navy petty officer had said he was "underneath TWA 800 when he saw a missile hit it and the 747 explode overhead." He had told this acquaintance that he had given a statement to the FBI when they returned to their port, and that the FBI had checked all their torpedo tubes and all their missile silos to make sure they had all the missiles on board that they had when they left port. Asked if there were other military vessels in the area, he had said, "Yes, several."

When Pierre Salinger, at a press conference in March 1997, declared that TWA Flight 800 had been shot down accidentally by a U.S. Navy missile, this former presidential press secretary, U.S. Senator and ABC News correspondent, was mercilessly attacked by his former colleagues. They accused him of peddling unsubstantiated Internet gossip. Salinger said that his information had been confirmed by a source who learned of the Navy's involvement from a friend who had a son in the Navy. The son was said to have personal knowledge that a Navy missile had downed the plane, but his father did not want to be identified, fearing his son would suffer retaliation for disclosing information the Navy was hiding.

There are hundreds of Navy and Coast Guard personnel, as well as some FBI, CIA, FAA, NTSB and former White House employees who know that the real cause of the crash of TWA 800 was papered over with a tissue of lies. Two of them, James Kallstrom and George Stephanopoulos, have made statements that indicate an official cover-up. Stephanopoulos, a Clinton adviser who is now an ABC News correspondent, mentioned on the air a secret meeting in the White House situation room "in the aftermath of the TWA 800 bombing." Kallstrom, who headed the FBI's TWA 800 investigation, told me – and I have this on tape – that three radar targets close to the crash site were Navy vessels on a classified maneuver. We know they were submarines because the radar tracks disappeared when TWA 800 crashed.

Our newly found talker was on one of those submarines. The Navy claims that it was at least 80 miles from the crash site, but he says it was very close, and that is confirmed by the radar tracks. In our taped interview, he was more guarded than he had been with his acquaintance. He said he didn't want to do anything that might "mess up" his retirement.

He said he saw "something come up." "I don't know what in the hell it was," he said, "but that's what it looked ..." Not completing what he started to say, he said, "You know, something went up." He estimated that it went up about a mile from his location, which was only a few miles from the shore. He said there were a couple of other subs nearby. When told that the radar tracks of all three disappeared because they submerged when the plane went down, he said, "Yeah, that's what we did."

He acknowledged that a number of Navy vessels were heading for W-105, a large area of the ocean south of Long Island that is used for naval maneuvers. He said that nothing they did off Long Island was classified, but he was not comfortable in discussing it.

When I called him a few days later, he was scared to death. He feared the Navy would withdraw his pension if I reported what he had said. It was not possible to convince him that the Navy couldn't do that. Not wanting to worsen his anxiety, his name and other details are being withheld as we try to get his and other interview reports that the FBI has withheld.

Reed Irvine is the chairman of Accuracy In Media, a media watchdog group based in Washington, D.C.

TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-165 next last
To: pfflier
Seems like someone from a sub would use the correct terminology for the VLS. The only missile silos around are for land based ICBMs.

First, it's Irvine who says "silos," not the submariner. Second, a web search quickly found that there are silos on subs.

"The submarine has a double-hulled configuration with missile silos housed in the inner hull."

121 posted on 02/03/2002 6:39:35 PM PST by VectoRama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
Saw your reference. The spelling of "defence" indicates European origin and European English has many idiomatic differences from American English

The quote in the article is an indirect quote of the "retired petty officer" who if familiar with VLS, would call the tubes launch tubes, launchers or VLS system, unless he wasn't in the US Navy.

It is a hole in the story I can't accept.

122 posted on 02/03/2002 7:06:31 PM PST by pfflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: pfflier
Salinger said that his information had been confirmed by a source who learned of the Navy's involvement from a friend who had a son in the Navy.

Look this kind of path up in any of the "Urban legends" websites. No one ever knows the source person, it is always the friend of a friend who knew...

123 posted on 02/03/2002 7:10:24 PM PST by pfflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
It does not say a submarine fired a missile.

You're absolutely correct!

Here's what it does say:
the FBI had checked all their torpedo tubes and all their missile silos to make sure they had all the missiles on board that they had when they left port.

Here's what else it doesn't say. It doesn't say what type, or class of submarine it was. Your implication in post 121 is that it was a ballistic missile submarine. So far, we have a friend of a friend who said...which doesn't carry much weight at all.

124 posted on 02/03/2002 7:32:05 PM PST by Tennessee_Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Magician
Nice and easy, now. Step away from the keyboard.
125 posted on 02/03/2002 7:37:15 PM PST by USNBandit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee_Bob
Here's what else it doesn't say. It doesn't say what type, or class of submarine it was. Your implication in post 121 is that it was a ballistic missile submarine.

So what? I was addressing an errant claim that no silos are on any submarines. Again, there is no implication that the sub fired a missile.

So far, we have a friend of a friend who said...which doesn't carry much weight at all.

Not true. Reread Reed's report..... Irvine recorded the statements of the source himself, not the statements of a friend of a friend who said.

126 posted on 02/04/2002 5:06:03 PM PST by VectoRama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
Tell you what. If an American vessel was responsible for shooting down the aircraft, we would have heard about it already, and not from some anonymous source afraid for his retirement. That won't satisfy those folks who are looking for a conspiracy though. Don't worry, I won't stop you. Everyone has to have a hobby. This just happens to be yours.
127 posted on 02/04/2002 5:27:11 PM PST by Tennessee_Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: BoPepper
Now that the Super Bowl and Playmate Fear Factor are over, I can respond.

Please see the following website for a thorough debunking of the Clinton Body Count "Theory"

I'm not advocating the "Body Count Theory". I'm talking about ONE INSTANCE where there is a mountain of evidence suggesting that someone(s) associated with the Clinton administration MURDERED a Secretary of Commerce (along with at least 34 others on the plane) and that certain people(s) in the Clinton administration and Military helped cover it up. Furthermore, let's take a look at what your so-called "debunking" site says about the Brown crash.

*** "There were no survivors." ***

That is UNTRUE. One of the flight attendants did in fact survive the crash. TEN HOURS later when rescuers arrived she was STILL alive. She then died on the way to the hospital under the care of a doctor. How "unfortunate" for her. This is PUBLIC RECORD so why does this site suggest there were no survivors?

Furthermore, a confidential timeline, uncovered by Judicial Watch via a FOIA suit, contains a message that was sent to the Secretary of State Warren Christopher from the crash site by Abe Sockowitz (an associate of John Huang, the Chinese SPY, by the way). It notified Christopher that there were TWO survivors. The government has NEVER mentioned this to anyone, not even in that OFFICIAL report you so cherish. Immediatedly after receiving this message, Christopher ordered that access to the site by journalists be curtailed. To this day, the government STILL has refused to comment on who Sockowitz considered the 2nd survivor.

Finally, Cyril Wecht, one of the foremost forensic pathologists in the entire country, after looking at the Brown photos, x-rays and examination report stated that EXCEPT for the hole in Brown's brain, his injuries were NOT life threatening. He said Brown could have survived the impact.

The "debunking" site goes on to say: *** "A lot has been made of an x-ray of Brown's skull in which what looks like a round entry wound appears. Closer examination of Brown's skull by military officials revealed no bullet, no bone fragments, no metal fragments and, even more telling, no exit wound." ***

This is UNTRUE in EVERY aspect. EVERY single pathologist involved in the case who has made public statements, INCLUDING Colonel Gormley who was in charge of examining the body, has now stated that it had the appearance of a bullet wound and there should have been an autopsy. Contrary to what is in the OFFICIAL report, there was BRAIN MATTER visible in the entrance wound so there had to have been bone fragments. And, according to the pathologists, there ARE bone fragments visible in the x-ray inside the skull, displaced away from the entrance hole. Several of the pathologists also say they see what could be metal fragments in the x-rays ... a lead snowstorm. Captain Janowski has stated, UNDER OATH, that she was told by Major Sentelle that Gormley tampered with the x-ray machine to try and hide the lead snowstorm in a second set of x-rays (which have ALSO disappeared). Cyril Wecht said the photos show what appear to be metallic fragments around the entrance wound which, he said, is characteristic of bullet entrance wounds. And as to there being no bullet ... well NO AUTOPSY was done. Do an autopsy and you may find one. As to there being no exit wound ... the most "telling" item ... noone would know because they did even NOT look for one (and that is the testimony of MULTIPLE people at the examination INCLUDING Colonel Gormley). So you see, this paragraph in your "debunking" site is FULL OF UNTRUTHS ... DEMONSTRABLE LIES. Makes one suspicious about the rest of the site.

From your "debunking" site: *** "Simply imagining a scenario under which Ron Brown could have been shot takes one into the realm of the absurd." ***

Here again the authors of this site are not telling the FACTS ... plus they have the cart before the horse. If there were a bullet wound in Brown's head, AS ALL THE EXPERTS SUGGEST MIGHT BE THE CASE, then no matter how implausible it might sound, someone managed to put one there. THAT is when you figure out how.

But in any case, there is a perfectly plausible scenario, based again ON THE FACTS which this site and people like you seem to want to avoid. First, we KNOW that a backup beacon was stolen from the airport to which the plane was headed several days before the crash. COINCIDENTALLY, the man in charge of that beacon at the airport committed "suicide" a few days after the crash ... before he could be interviewed. How "strange" that he kills himself using a shotgun to the CHEST. How "strange" that the NY Times IMMEDIATELY reported the cause was a failed romance ... one would think the man would have other things on his mind than a "romance" given he was a central figure in the SERIOUS crash that had just occurred. I wonder ... does your Air Force report mention this man and his death? That sure seems like something lawyers might want to know.

Second, the published flight path of the plane clearly shows a sudden 90 degree maneuver just before its attempted landing ... one which the report and the officer in charge of the crash investigation do not explain. It is entirely plausible that the plane was spoofed into crashing into the mountain using the portable backup beacon. All that would have been needed is for the normal beacon, which was working BEFORE and AFTER the crash, to have been momentarily turned off. And what a coincidence ... the man who would have been able to do that ... the maintenance chief in charge of the beacons ... committed suicide right after the crash.

But there is more. We KNOW that something happened on board that plane when it was still 8 MILES from the crash site. That is when BOTH transponder and voice contact were lost. Two SEPARATE systems on board that plane failed at the same time. We also know that the crashed plane was found with the rear door open. If you were going to spoof the plane into flying into a mountain, it might be a good idea to cut communications with the plane so that the pilots could get no help from the ground ... so they would have to depend on the beacon even if it did something odd (like show up 10 degrees off from where they were expecting it) right before landing.

And still more! If you were going to deliberately crash a plane, wouldn't you want to make sure that the person you were trying to kill was dead? You KNOW where the plane is coming down (because you are doing the spoofing) so it would make sense to place some people you could trust on the ground nearby to move in and "make sure". Don't you think? So you need to make sure that recovery efforts look elsewhere at first. Well, initially the military reported finding wreckage at sea ... miles from the crash site ... so all initial recovery efforts were focused on an area far removed from the actual crash site. Furthermore, Associate Press reported that the first rescuers to arrive at the crash site many hours later were met by 3 Americans who were already on the ground. Funny ... the OFFICIAL report doesn't mention these men. Funny, noone in the US government has ever admitted to our people arriving at the crash site first. Can you spell CLEAN UP CREW?

So ... having DEBUNKED your so-called "debunking" site, let's move on to the rest of what you posted.

We are not discussing the Ron Brown case.

But you are claiming that it would be impossible to have a large conspiracy of silence involving the military, NTSB and other government agencies. You seem to be suggesting that military people would never involve themselves in something as terrible as a mass murder. The Brown case, however, seems to show that isn't necessarily true ... at least during the Clinton years. Furthermore, I think your response to the Brown evidence is illuminating with regards to how credible your opinions are in other cases. I might agree with you about the TWA 800 case ... IF you were not clearly trying to ignore credible evidence of misdeeds in the Brown case. That should make everyone suspicious as to your motives.

Do you believe the official explanation for the explosion and crash of TWA 800?

As I have said, I haven't made up my mind. There ARE facts which the official line in the TWA800 case do not seem to explain. There ARE facts (for example, statements by the government about the presence of ships in the area) which seem to suggest the government has been less than honest at times. And I am not willing to totally ignore so many eyewitness accounts.

By the way, Ron Brown's family is satisfied with the Air Force report and has called for an end to all the speculation.

Sure, let's discuss this since you seem to want to tell only half the story. First, Brown's family was NOT told about the statements of the pathologists and the x-rays by the government ... or any of the other suspicious facts surrounding the case. If they had been, they would surely have demanded an autopsy and, indeed, when those pathologist opinions finally came to light years later, at least one member of the Brown family ... his daughter, Tracy ... did call for an investigation. To bad she and her family based their decision not to pursue that investigation on a report from an unnamed pathologist that they hired ... a pathologist who seems to have been more than a little "misinformed". She says he told them they found no exit wound which is why she stopped calling for an autopsy. Problem is, as I pointed out earlier, they NEVER looked for an exit wound. She also repeated the other lies from your "debunking" site. One wonders who recommended that pathologist ... or if he even exists?

As to the wife and son not demanding an investigation ... well consider this. BOTH were already indicted at the time of Brown's death on charges related to some for which Brown was about to be indicted. That gave the administration CONSIDERABLE leverage over them. After Brown's death, the indictment against the wife was dropped and the son (Michael) in the end received only a hand slap for what are clearly SERIOUS crimes. The Browns, along with the other families of victims, received over TEN MILLION dollars in compensation from the government ... on the condition that they drop all law suits. And, to this day, Michael ... despite being a convicted FELON ... is STILL working for the democRATS in a position important enough to get him interviewed from time to time on shows like THE FACTOR. It is the old carrot and stick approach. Keep quiet and we'll reward you. Make a fuss and you'll end up in jail ... or worse. Afterall, if they were willing to kill Ron, do you think the same people would have shed any tears if the wife or son met an unfortunate accident? So perhaps THAT is why the Brown family has called for an end to speculation.

128 posted on 02/04/2002 7:32:11 PM PST by BeAChooser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: BoPepper
Ok. Now let's discuss the newspaper articles you quoted.

Washington Post January 09, 1998
Cogswell himself did not participate in the examination conducted on Brown's body.

Do you think that forensic pathologists are unable to look at photos of the wound and x-rays of the skull and make a reasonable assessment as to the cause? How more certain can the person at the examination table be if they didn't do an autopsy? ... if they did no tests for gunpowder? ... if they didn't even look for an exit wound? ... even when other people and pathologists at the examination were saying it looked like a bullet wound and that Brown should be autopsied?

He repeated his concerns in an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, a newspaper owned by conservative philanthropist Richard Mellon Scaife that has frequently published reports about conspiracy theories surrounding the death of deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster.

How does being a conservative preclude one from publishing the facts? Funny that a conservative, like you claim to be, would suggest dismissing an report in major newspaper because the paper is owned by a conservative (I presume that is what you are doing by posting this article)? And its odd that a conservative would dismiss the source because it questioned the circumstances surrounding Foster's death. Out of curiosity, do you think Foster committed suicide as the Clinton administration proclaimed? If so, are you willing to answer some of the many unanswered questions about that death ... perhaps the questions that were asked by Representative Barr of Ken Starr ... or perhaps the questions asked at

A third pathologist, Cyril H. Wecht, said after reviewing some of Brown's X-rays that an autopsy was needed to firmly conclude how he died. "The pictures they have certainly don't tell you what killed this man," Wecht said.

A very self-serving, "selective", out-of-context quote. Here is more of what Wecht said. "It's not even arguable in the field of medical legal investigations whether an autopsy should have been conducted on Brown. I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied."

Armed forces officials acknowledge that the injury on Brown's head resembles a gunshot wound. But they said further investigation made it clear that Brown was not shot and instead died of "blunt force injury."

I can name and quote the 4 AFIP officers who came forward as whistleblowers; Colonel Cogswell, Colonel Hause, Major Parsons and Captain Janoski. Can you name or quote even one of the "officials" who this article CLAIMS says it was "blunt force"? If you name Dickerson, head of AFIP, I will prove that he publically LIED about the views of his staff in this matter. If you name Gormley, I will prove that he publically LIED about the nature of the wound and has since even admitted that Brown should be autopsied. Other than those two, I have not heard the names of ANY other pathologists willing to defend the government's "fiction". Furthermore, Cogswell and Hause were amongst the most expert people at AFIP when it comes to gunshot wounds. I wonder what credentials those you name will have?

They are unsure of what caused the fracture, saying that in the chaos of a plane wreck Brown's skull could have been punctured by any of hundreds of objects.

The article neglects to mention that an extensive search was made at the crash, by Cogswell, for the cause of the wound AND NOTHING WAS FOUND. Still, that didn't stop Eric Junger, another AFIP manager, from LYING publically that a cause had been found. AFIP management seems to LIE very readily, don't they? Are you sure you want to rely on them as your basis for concluding everything was A-OK in the Brown case?

Furthermore, they said, X-rays taken as part of the examination of Brown's body found no bone or metal fragments, no exit wound and no bullet -- all of which they said are normally associated with a gunshot injury to the head.

Again, DEMONSTRABLY UNTRUE, as I've already pointed out. Which just proves that this article is nothing but mainstream regurgitation of a story that the Clinton administration wanted the mainstream to regurgitate. I doubt the author of this article even bothered to leave his office or do more than call Dickerson or Kelly, the AFIP spokesperson.

In addition, pathologists who examined Brown said the portion of Brown's skull near the wound would have been shattered had Brown been shot.

Again, the author does not name these "pathologists". I wonder why. The pathologists who have been named ALL state that the entrance wound looks like a bullet wound. In fact, speaking as an engineer somewhat familiar with impact mechanics, I suspect a blunt force impact would have been more likely to "shatter" Brown's skull than a high velocity round at close range.

"There is no doubt in anybody's mind who evaluated his case that this was a blunt force injury and not a gunshot wound," said Col. William T. Gormley, the Air Force pathologist who examined Brown's body and ordered additional X-rays after finding the head injury.

DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. Clearly a lot by competent professionals who evaluated this case don't believe the "blunt force" fantasy. And let's look closer at Gormley's honesty. On December 11, 1997, despite the gag order, Gormley was allowed to give a live interview on Black Entertainment Television. Members of the black community, who had heard rumors about the possibility of a gun shot wound in Brown's head, had begun to ask for an investigation. Gormley immediately attacked the other pathologists. He stated that one could rule out a bullet wound because no brain matter was visible in the wound. He also stated that the x-rays taken during the examination showed no trace of a bullet injury. He denied that two sets of x-rays existed. Then, on live TV, he was confronted with a photograph taken during the examination (by Janoski) that showed brain matter visible in the wound. He ended up admitting that brain matter was indeed visible, excusing his former statements as a memory lapse. He then admitted that the hole was a "red flag" which should have triggered a further inquiry. Next he was confronted with a copy of Janowski's x-ray slides. He immediately changed his story and claimed that this first set of x-rays had been "lost" so that a second set was required. It was then pointed out that the Janoski x-rays slides show signs of a "lead snowstorm", which he didn't refute. Judicial Watch says that Colonel Gormley now admits that he consulted with other high-ranking pathologists present DURING the external examination of Ron Brown's body and they AGREED that the hole looked like a gunshot wound, "at least an entrance gunshot wound". Furthermore, he confesses that no autopsy was requested based on "discussions" at the highest levels in Commerce, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and THE WHITEHOUSE! Are you sure you want to put your faith in Gormley's original LIES ... the LIES contained in that OFFICIAL report?

Gormley's conclusion was unanimously backed by a review panel that included armed forces pathologists assembled after Cogswell's criticisms surfaced last month. The group issued a report reaffirming the initial Air Force conclusion that Brown's death was accidental, according to Col. Michael Dickerson, director of the pathology institute. He said Hause was among the doctors on that review panel, although Hause declined to comment on the panel's work yesterday. Likewise, Cogswell has declined to comment on the issue, citing the advice of his attorney.

Boy is this a pack of LIES. In a written statement, Cogswell declined to comment to the Post on the issue because "I do not trust you to accurately and fairly represent what I say." As I will show, his concerns are justified. According to Cogswell, he refused to participate in the review, following the advice of his lawyer, because he thought it would be unfair and biased. He says that most of those participating were not board-certified in forensic pathology and of those who were, none had significant interest or experience in gunshot wounds. He says that ALL of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's forensic pathologists with any expertise in gunshot wounds (Cogswell, Hause and Parsons) dissented from the "official" opinion.

In fact, Hause told the Tribune-Review that "Fletcher's article in the Washington Post, in which Colonel Dickerson said I concurred in this `unanimous' finding, contains a lie." The Post report left him "fuming," Hause said, and that evening he prepared a point-by-point statement countering AFIP's claims. Hause said he was never informed a report was to be issued on the Brown case, nor did he ever see the report that AFIP claims he signed off on. He asked the Armed Forces Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Jerry Spencer, for a copy of the report. Spencer said he would not release it, and the decision on whether to release it rested with Dickerson.

Hause is quoted as saying he and several other pathologists from the office met with Spencer, ostensibly to conduct the internal review. But Hause said the review was not done by the group, because Spencer began the meeting by informing the pathologists that he would not permit any group discussion on the case. Instead, Spencer showed them photographic and X-ray evidence from the Brown case. Hause was startled that the pathologists were presented with only "blow-ups of Polaroids" of Brown's body. Hause described the instant photos as "hard to decipher," and noted that Spencer could have used 35mm photos that would have been "better material" for analysis.

After the presentation, Spencer met individually with each pathologist to discuss findings. During their private meeting, Spencer asked a handful of questions, Hause recalled. One was whether Hause thought the circular hole was caused by a gunshot. Hause told Spencer he thought it was "probably not" a gunshot, but at no point did he rule out the possibility that it was. Hause said he emphasized to Spencer that the wound was very consistent with an "exotic weapon," such as a captive-bolt gun. Hause noted that a captive-bolt gun, normally used to slaughter livestock, creates a perfectly circular hole in the skull that closely resembles a gunshot.

According to Hause, Spencer asked if he agreed with Gormley's findings. Hause responded that the death was "probably" accidental, but that there was insufficient evidence to say Brown died of blunt force injuries as a result of the plane crash. Hause also says he advised Spencer that Gormley should have conducted an autopsy, and that "Secretary Brown's body should be exhumed and an autopsy performed by pathologists not associated with AFIP."

Parsons, another participant in the internal review, told the Tribune-Review that he, too, could not back Gormley's findings. Reached at his home Saturday, the Air Force major also said he had never reviewed nor signed off on any such report, and had no idea what the report contained. Parsons said the statement in Friday's Post that all panelists had agreed with Gormley's findings "was not true."

According to Parsons, he told Spencer during their private meeting that the circular hole was both suspicious and unusual, and could not reasonably be accounted for by the plane crash. He also said the head wound was just one of many reasons an autopsy should have been performed. Asked by Spencer if he agreed with Gormley's main findings - that the manner of death was accidental, and that death was caused by blunt force injuries - Parsons told Spencer that neither finding could be substantiated at the time and that, in his opinion, the manner of death was "undetermined."

Asked about all this, AFIP spokesman Chris Kelly said AFIP "stands by" Dickerson's claim that the findings of the review panel were unanimously supported by AFIP pathologists. Kelly said the panel's report was "not for public release," and he had no further information about its contents. Can you spell STONEWALL?

So, BoPepper, it looks like someone is not being very honest about the facts here ... doesn't it ... DICKERSON, KELLY (the AFIP spokesperson) and the author of the article you cite. In fact, as Hause noted to Ruddy, because of the unusual way the review was conducted, he has no idea whether the other pathologists agreed with Gormley's findings AS AFIP HAS CLAIMED. I would suspect not, given the above DEMONSTRABLE LIES.

129 posted on 02/04/2002 7:33:52 PM PST by BeAChooser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: BoPepper
Now lets move on to the Boston Globe article that you posted.

The Pentagon said an autopsy was unnecessary because the forensic pathologist who examined Brown's body concluded the head wound was consistent with a blunt-force injury associated with the plane crash.

As noted above, that pathologist, Gormley, was caught LYING on national TV about the evidence in the case and has since retracted this "conclusion". You need another source of information BoPepper.

"It's an investigation to make sure Dr. Cogswell did not violate policies and procedures, and to make sure there were not other violations," Kelly said.

No, it was a effort to DESTROY the career of Cogswell. Let's note a few FACTS about this so called investigation. As of today, Cogswell, Hause, Parsons and Janowski have all been reassigned to other duties outside their areas of expertise and the Government has tried to limit their contact with fellow pathologists by barring them from conferences. They had their homes searched without a search warrant and have been given negative job evaluations (for the first time in careers spanning over 10 years). For example, Cogswell's evaluation, which was six months late, states that he is "disruptive to the work environment with immature behavior." He has been "unresponsive to counseling," it continues, adding that he has used "inappropriate language" and worn "inappropriate dress." Cogswell is even criticized for his manner of driving in the AFIP facility's parking lot. The belated report bears three signatures, including those of Armed Forces Chief Medical Examiner Jerry Spencer and AFIP Director Col. Michael Dickerson, both PROVEN liars. The signatures are not even dated. Cogswell's performance evaluations before the Ron Brown cover-up described him as "extremely capable," and "the number one forensic pathologist in the Department of Defense."

"All I said was the man needed an autopsy," says Cogswell. Now he's been transferred to dental forensics at another site: in effect, a demotion. Had he ever had a problem like this before? "Oh no," he says. "I was the golden boy. The evaluations previously said 'He's the man we'd pick for the toughest missions.' I was the team leader of choice to investigate any sort of airplane crash or death, no matter how complicated, and no matter how politically sensitive. And now I'm probably back in the senior medical student status of reading pathology slides on things that are scraped out of people's mouths."

"Due to the initial appearance of Brown's injuries, we carefully considered the possibility of a gunshot wound. However, scientific data, including X-rays, ruled out that possibility." Gormley said the head injury appeared superficial, and a "thorough and detailed examination of the entire body, including multiple skull and full body X-rays, demonstrated no exit wounds, bullets or bullet fragments."

Others at the examination specifically refute the suggestion he makes about looking for exit wounds and bullet fragments and, as pointed out, Gormley has admitted that his impressions about the wound on which he based his conclusion were in "mistaken". Yet, people like you keep repeating the lies ... perhaps to keep the public in the dark?

Dr. Michael Graham, the medical examiner for St. Louis, said in general, a full examination and X-rays could rule out the need for an autopsy.

True ... if the conclusions were actually based on the observed wound characteristics and the contents of the x-rays. But as we now know, Gormley's weren't. And note that ultimately Graham admitted that he couldn't tell whether an autopsy could be ruled out.

Kelly, the institute's spokesman, said autopsies were performed on military personnel in the crash, the only group on which military doctors have the authority to perform autopsies.

A half truth at best. The AFIP management certainly could have requested permission to autopsy Brown's body. In fact, BY LAW, once there was any concern about foul play in the death of a Cabinet level person (and, remember, pathologists were saying it looks like a bullet wounds at the examination!), the FBI was supposed to be called in so that an autopsy could be ordered. Instead, the Whitehouse and JCS ordered that AFIP's management NOT do an autopsy. Wonder why?

So ... instead of simply smearing Newsmax, why don't you visit the site and read the many articles they have on the Brown matter. There is much more incriminating evidence that even what's been discussed here. Much more. Then, maybe you'd like to try again.

130 posted on 02/04/2002 7:34:40 PM PST by BeAChooser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
When Pierre Salinger, at a press conference in March 1997, declared that TWA Flight 800 had been shot down accidentally by a U.S. Navy missile, this former presidential press secretary, U.S. Senator and ABC News correspondent, was mercilessly attacked by his former colleagues.

Accuracy in Media??? When did Salinger serve in the Senate?

131 posted on 02/04/2002 7:37:13 PM PST by pgkdan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan
Accuracy in Media??? When did Salinger serve in the Senate?

Salinger, Pierre Emil George (b. 1925) -- also known as Pierre Salinger -- Born in San Francisco, San Francisco County, Calif., June 14, 1925. Democrat. Served in the U.S. Navy during World War II; U.S. Senator from California, 1964; defeated, 1964. Paris bureau chief for ABC News. Still living as of 1998. See also: congressional biography.

132 posted on 02/10/2002 8:29:56 AM PST by VectoRama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: yazd
I don't recall anyone saying there were no subs in the area. I can be wrong, but I think I have seen MANY references to the number of surface vessels (and, by imlication, subs) in the area. There has never been a question of that.

Here is the issue: the ONLY weapon that could have brought down that plane was a Standard (or missile of similar range), and NOT a "terrorist hand-held stinger."

When you get into these scenarios, however, you have a MULTITUDE of problems, especially the radar data, for which so far no one has been able to produce that shows ONE MISSILE (let alone TWO, as is required by the Sanders/Standard scenario). Surely ONE of those vessels, or ONE of the MANY FAA radard in that are would have ONE radar tape that SOMEONE would smuggle out to the public.

Like the JFK "missing bullet" from the "shooters in front," it is the one piece of evidence that would clearly make the unimpeachable case for a Navy "shootdown"---yet it is the piece of evidence that the conspiracy people cannot produce, despite the fact that it should be relatively easy to do so.

133 posted on 02/19/2002 9:41:37 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: VectoRama
Sailors are VERY RARELY on the deck of a submarine, especially at nite. Subs do not carry AA missiles, and they don't have air search radar.
134 posted on 02/19/2002 9:49:21 AM PST by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BeAChooser
You claim to be big on "facts." There is one simple fact that would put this to rest---the one the conspiracy kooks do not want to confront: there are hundreds, if not THOUSANDS, of public, private, and government radar stations operating and dozens of them would have picked up something on their screens that day. Why is it that NOT ONE, NOWHERE, has a single radar image of a missile (by the way, you need TWO missiles, not one, for the thesis of this article to work. If you don't understand that, let me know and I'll 'splain it to you).

Sanders ("Downing of TWA 800") claims there was one such tape, but the FAA got it and either destroyed or altered it. Sorry, but what about the dozens of others? It is a ridiculous claim without that evidence. All the so-called "eyewitnesses"---the same people who had O.J. at different places in Los Angeles at different times---are thoroughly unreliable.

Moreover, if you look at the claims by the SCIENTISTS (such as Ian Goddard, who claims that the "holes" in the aft fuselage are evidence of an outside explosion above 800) and compare them with the claims of Sanders (who says that the "Standard, pass-through missile" cut TWA 800 in half in front of the center wing tank), you have two completely different scenarios. EITHER OF THEM requires TWO MISSILES ON A RADAR SCREEN (a drone and a hunter). But if BOTH these guys are right, now we need THREE missiles (a drone, an outside exploder, and a "pass through").

So stick to this fact: without a radar tape, you got zip, zero, nada. I will certainly be willing to change my view if you or anyone else provides radar evidence. (I likely would be convinced also if you could find some navy officers/sailors who actually FIRED the weapon, rather than a guy 80 miles away!!!! who says he saw something. That ain't evidence, and it sure isn't a "fact."

135 posted on 02/19/2002 9:50:15 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: BeAChooser
In your apparently irrational zeal to "get" someone here you display your ignorance of procedures. Even critics such as Ian Goddard admit that the NTSB has SUPREME jurisdiction over all air disasters, even over the FAA, and even over the Air Force if it so chooses to exercise such jurisdiction. In fact, you destroy your own case, because the fact that the Air Force gave UP this jurisdiction when (to the conspiratorial thinker) it could have superceded "official" channels, proves all the more this was handled in a normal manner.

Stick with the radar data. Oh, I forgot, you don't have any.

136 posted on 02/19/2002 9:55:54 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: BeAChooser
On the Brown case, don't be ridiculous. "I can get six pathologists . . . blah, blah, blah." That's like saying you can get six lawyers to agree to some position you have.

Yes, pathologists have looked at Brown's photos, and at JFK's, and at Sacco-Vanzetti's, and everyone elses. It's amazing that they don't agree, either. In the absence of real evidence (radar data, actual sworn court testimony by Naval officers on board the vessel that "fired" the missile), why do you keep recirculating rumors and third-hand references?

And if the pathologists come to one conclusion about Brown, what makes you think that even well-trained honest Air Force people would not come to a completely different conclusion based on the fact that they AREN'T pathologists? In your view, they can't possibly disagree with your world conspiracy and be "honest."

137 posted on 02/19/2002 10:01:00 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Whether Reed Irvine is telling the truth really isn't the issue. The more interesting one is whether the alleged source is telling the truth.

Believe it or not, servicepeople have been known to exaggerate or even lie about their military service. This may come as a shock to some (sarcasm), but its true. Like anyone else, a servicemember may lie about something just to make themselves feel more important, or to garner attention from someone like Reed Irvine, or just to impress a friend with a cool story.

This guy's account, as repeated by Irvine, strikes me as ridiculous. Not knowing what a missile looks like alone marks him as a fabricator in my book. And what are we supposed to believe? That the hundreds (and perhaps thousands) of Navy people who would have had knowledge of this alleged coverup have stayed silent except for this one guy? Or that this one guy is a kook who simply made it up?

And if the guy really is retired, what's the risk to him of blabbing anyway? Hell, go to a major media outlet, tell your story, get megabucks. That's the easiest, safest, and most profitable course of action. But of course, he doesn't do that because he's lying, and he knows it.

138 posted on 02/19/2002 10:17:52 AM PST by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
Actually in the early 1980s, the Navy WAS experimenting with AA missiles on subs, but to my knowledge, nothing came of it because to "acquire and fire" would mean surfacing and thus placing the sub in more danger than when below the waterline.
139 posted on 02/19/2002 10:19:16 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: LS
You claim to be big on "facts."

The only facts I'm arguing are those in the Ron Brown crash. I introduced the topic to this thread as a counter argument to those who claim that it isn't conceivable that the government and military could be involved in a large coverup. IF, just ONCE, those debunking TWA800 would HONESTLY debate the facts in the Ron Brown evidence, or admit they know nothing about that case, THEN, their impartiality in the TWA800 case might be believable.

140 posted on 02/19/2002 2:08:13 PM PST by BeAChooser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-165 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson