[This is a re-post I made in ...Ron Brown Connection I]

NoFob;

First, a look at the wound shows the same sort of tissue (scalp?) that is present within the "bullet hole" is found surrounding it. Take a look.

And secondly, here are some comments from various people with expertise in pathology and x-rays;

-------------------

Various remarks from forensic pathologists:

"It does not appear to my eye to be even close to a gunshot wound. It appears to be blunt trauma, and maybe post mortem blunt trauma. Was there a fire?"

"I have viewed the same x-rays plus the autopsy photographs as published by Ruddy
at his web site.
First: The photographs are quite good ."

"No gunshot wound is present. Just below
the depressed skull fracture on the top of the head is visaible the remaining in
place depressed fragment of skull bone."

"With certainty there is no evidence in the x-rays of head
and neck, or photographs, of any bullet passage, bullet fragments or
anything to suggest injuries other than what were the result of the
aircraft crash. "

"I reviewed those X-rays. And as a Forensic Pathologist I can confidetnly
say, "NO Way" is that a GSW. It is a punched out lesion from some
cylindrical object in the environment of teh cabin of the modified 737
aircraft."

From a Medical, Technologist, X-Ray Technologist and EMT:

"The enlargement does enhance the fracture at the top
of the skull and clearly shows the bony fragment to be the depressed
piece of the skull from the wound. This is NOT from a bullet, no
fragmentation, this is a depression skull fracture from contact. "

"IF again, these were bullet fragments, where is
the bullet? I would have to still be in that area because there is no
obvious exit wound out of the base, or floor of the cranial cavity which
is bone and there is no break in the orbital cavity. In order to get
out into the neck area, but bullet would HAVE to have gone through
another layer of bone. "

-------------------

Please have someone who knows what they are talking about give his/her opinion to you before you draw your opinions. I am finding it doubtful whether you are interested in the truth and rather, you are helping perpetuate conspiracy where it doesn't exist.

The material I've presented is from a somewhat detailed examination of the Ron Brown case a couple of years ago.

Marigold

First of all, don't co-opt other people's titles.

Second, it looks like you got your hands on some disinformation. Congratulations.

Your issue is not with me. Your issue is with the 4 AFIP personnel who said it looked like a bullet hole. I guess we'll never know for sure since NO AUTOPSY was performed. Which is in itself highly irregular and suspicious. When there is a discrepancy as to cause of death, an autopsy MUST be performed. That's the SOLE PURPOSE of the AFIP and those who worked there; determining the EXACT cause of death.

If you don't think the photos and x-rays show an obvious bullet hole, then interview those 4 AFIP personnel yourself. Their names are listed under the original post.

Don't bother the rest of us anymore with your B.S. You obviously can't tell the difference between skull and brain tissue. Both are an off-white color. Ron Brown's scalp is brown because he was an African American. Get it? The white you see surrounding the bullet hole is skull bone, not scalp which was torn away from the area. If you aren't smart enough to be able to figure that out on your own, then your interpretations of the photos and x-rays, and those of the people you quoted, are worthless.

Stop wasting my, and everybody else's, time with your half-baked posts.

NoFOB, you say that you know no more about the damage to Brown's skull than some pathologists who have NOT rendered a conclusive diagnosis. At least one pathologist said it MIGHT be a bullet hole. Yet you declare any contrary opinions "disinformation," which suggests that while the pathologists were not 100% sure, you are. How do you know more than the pathologists whose unconclusive opinion you've told people they cannot stray from?

Is it possible that the pathologist who said it might be a bullet hole is wrong?

First of all it was FOUR pathologists (count 'em; 1-2-3-4), not just 1, who said that IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, it was a bullet hole. They can't officially confirm anything without performing an autopsy, which they were ORDERED not to do. Sounds suspicious to me.

Since they couldn't officially determine an exact cause of death, (since they were ORDERED not to perform an autopsy), forensic geniuses like you and Marigold want to question their findings. Fine.

So I guess you geniuses have come up with an alternative explanation for the perfect .45 caliber hole punched through his skull and the "lead snowstorm" indicative of bullet fragments. Huh? Crash investigators at the scene looked for 1/2" bolts and rods that might have caused such an injury and, guess what, they found NOTHING. Zip, zero, nada. Even if they had, how could a rod or bolt enter the top of his head at a perfect 90 degree angle and exit at that exact same angle without any twisting and turning of his head that would've widened the entrance hole and made it more jagged and elliptical instead of perfectly circular?

And Marigold quoted an "expert" who called that hole "blunt force trauma!" Ridiculous!

Why don't you guys go borrow a brain so that you can both share half and them come back and debate with me.

But I don't think your chances of winning that debate will be any better.

Hey, NoFOB,

You don't mess around do you?

I can't talk for the pathology department, but the other allegations surrounding this 'incident' added up to a deal of wierdness.

The loss of a portable instrument at the airport, the death of the guy who was responsible for this and other equipment, (By suicide, before he could be questioned) the death of the 'cuts and bruises' female who died on the way to hospital, the storm that wasn't, etc etc.

One item doesn't make a conspiracy, but when they mount up, you gotta look at the first one in a new light.

It's only my opinion FOB(no) but attacking the messenger is not as good as offering them other questions to answer - since they're interested in contributing, let them contribute, but let them address all the wierdness, not selective 'eveidence'.

I'm glad to see you're coming around. Yes, the "weirdness" around Ron Brown's demise does cast a new light on TWA800 when one considers the Ferrat connection. And one should consider ALL possible explanations for a cover-up as deep and wide as this one.

As far as attacking other posters, I try to be tolerant, but I cannot tolerate dimwits who insist an pressing a weak position despite my repeated warnings to them. Sooner or later, you have to give them a public spanking. That discourages other dimwits from posting their own nonsense.

By the way, I'm not referring to you. I hope you didn't take too much offense to my posts regarding you. I was just having some fun.

As for others, if you come to a gunfight with only a Swiss Army Knife, you're gonna get shot.

NoFOB said: "First of all it was FOUR pathologists (count 'em; 1-2-3-4), not just 1, who said that IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, it was a bullet hole."

I think you're misrepresenting them, but I might be wrong. I believe the first pathologist said he thought it might be a bullet hole and the others supported investigating it, but did not exactly offer opinions. Why don't you go get their exact quotes since you're pushing this.

The fact is there is no bullet, no lead snow storm, no exit wound, and there's obvious bone visible in the hole. If you think you're winning the debate, I guess I'm not surprised.

Your issue is not with me. Your issue is with the 4 AFIP personnel who said it looked like a bullet hole.

NoFob;

Well, maybe some of their earlier comments were to that effect although its hard to determine the full context of their thinking when the only coverage consists of selected quotes written by C. Ruddy in the slanted Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, published by Richard MellonScaife. Get real. Also, that the pathologists are under a gag order doesn't help either.

I'll trust photographs over newspaper articles any day of the week.

Marigold

<<...the slanted Pittsburgh Tribune-Review...>>

Like the major media outlets aren't slanted.

<<...published by Richard Mellon Scaife...>>

You and Hillary must be the only ones who actually believe that "vast right-wing conspiracy" crap.

<<I'll trust photographs over newspaper articles any day of the week.>>

You can trust anything you want. I just wish you knew how to interpret those photographs.

You can trust anything you want. I just wish you knew how to interpret those photographs.

NoFob and other readers;

Why don't you take a look at some real pictures of gunshot wounds and compare those to the "bullet hole" in Ron Brown.

There are examples at this page;

http://medstat.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNINJ.html#2

Where is the gunshot residue if this was supposedly a fairly close-contact (assassin's) shot? If not close contact, how could it be so perfectly cylindrical with such a smooth circular perforation? If a through and through bullet hole why is the tissue within the circle identical to the surrounding material?

Marigold