The Death of Vince Foster - What Really Happened? (1995)

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...1/ai_17817574/ notes that Wallace showed a portion of his interview with Ruddy, where he tells Ruddy, "You know and I know that there was blood all over the back of the shirt." Ruddy replies that "Dr. Haut [the only doctor to view the body at the official death scene], in his FBI report and his interview with me, said there was not a lot of blood behind the body." Wallace then says, as if its established fact, that "Dr. Haut says Chris Ruddy simply got it wrong." But according to Haut's own FBI interview: "Haut did not recall seeing blood on the decedent's shirt or face and no blood was recalled on the vegetation around the body. . . Although the volume of blood was small . . . the blood was matted and clotted under the head. . . . Haut believed that the wound was consistent with a low-velocity weapon."

(snip)

That source also shows that Wallace further misrepresented the facts when he stated that "Dr. Donald Haut, the Fairfax County Medical Examiner, arrived at the scene to examine the body. At that point, Foster's body was rolled over and those present observed a large pool of blood on the ground where Foster's head had been." As you can see from the Haut's FBI interview statements, not only was there no "large" volume of blood but the blood evidence wasn't even liquid.

Former Starr assistant Miguel Rodriguez, who both BAC and his favored source Patrick Knowlton agree blew the "coverup" wide open:

"By the way, you know why there was blood. They lifted the body and pulled it to the top of the ridge, top of the berm, and once they did that blood started flowing fast. And then when they took the body and put it into the body bag, which was right – in other words they – it was on a slope – they pull it up onto the slope. When the body is horizontal or even at the top of the berm it's not quite horizontal it's a little bit of a back-slope – and all of a sudden the blood starts gushing out, there's a lot of blood then under the body. "

Which of your sources are we to believe, BAC? The one that said "the volume of blood was small" and what there was was "matted and clotted", or the one that said there was "a lot of blood" that was "gushing out"?

Is Rodriguez secretly in on the conspiracy too? Or is it Haut who's really in on the conspiracy?

Can you enlighten us, BAC?

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

You have no witnesses

That is completely false. There are all sorts of witnesses (CW, Patrick Knowlton, Dr Haut, the EMS personnel, certain Park Police members, FBI agent testimony, Starr's own top investigator, etc. etc. etc.). A fact pointed out repeatedly in this thread. So if there is no such thing as a liar on this forum, we can only assume you didn't bother to read or understand a single post I made. You just ignore what I noted those witnesses saying. Perhaps because they don't fit in with your suicide "madness"?

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

no motive

Not true. Vince Foster was involved in a variety of activities that might have gotten him killed. The Clinton's finances and their blind trust, for instance. Why did it take so extraordinarily long to get it finalized (far longer than previous Presidents) ... when the Clintons came into office not even owning a house? There were reports of a possible affair between Vince and Hillary. Foster had access to information on Travelgate. And on what really happened at Waco (about which he was reportedly quite upset). He was involved with Hillary in Whitewater. In fact, it appears that Whitewater related documents that Hillary claimed she didn't have (there was a court order to turn them over) were kept in Foster's office and removed immediately after his death (and then magically found their way into the Clinton's Whitehouse bedroom where they were later *discovered* ... after the statute of limitations on the Whitewater crimes expired).

We also know that Foster made a number of overnight (i.e., one day) trips to Switzerland between 1991 and 1993. On July 1, 1998, just weeks before he died, he apparently purchased another ticket to Switzerland. But he never used that one. Can you tell us why he made all those trips to Switzerland but canceled the one just before his death? Maybe it had something to do with the stress you folks say he was experiencing? Or is that just as mysterious and "irrelevant" as the $286,000 payment to Lisa that you want to ignore? Could it have something to do with Leo Wanta? Do you know who Wanta is, KB? If not, maybe you should investigate. Maybe start here: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...7/203006.shtml and here http://www.rense.com/general70/formerambassadorsays.htm . Perhaps the "motive" had to do with why the US government has been admitting there are trillions and trillions of dollars unaccounted for? Such monetary losses aren't something I just made up, KB. They've been reported in various quite respectable publications. Like the Washington Times. And the Washington Post.

So you see, there are all sorts of possible motives.

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

no murder suspects, nothing at all that points to murder so you harp on and on and on about 'oven mitts'.

Yes, KB ... bury your head ... rather than deal with what that oven mitt and so much other evidence is trying to tell you.

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

You are not asking reasonable questions

So now it's unreasonable to ask why the eyewitness testimony of so many differs from what Fiske and Starr reported? It's unreasonable to ask how Foster got a gun to the death site without putting a fingerprint on it? To ask how he got to the death site without soiling his shoes? To ask why the witnesses say the body is in a different position in Fiske/Starr's photographs than what they observed when they first arrived. To ask why the description of the wound by the doctor at the site and the EMS personnel who moved Foster differs from what Fiske and Starr claimed it was? To ask why the government fought the release of even one photo of Foster's head, when that alone might have debunked the allegations? What's next, liberal ... government thought control so questions like that are "unreasonable"?

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Quote:
What is kookbreaker really trying to protect? Foster's family ... or the democrat party? I suggest it's the latter.

I suggest that for someone who whines about ad hominens, you sure do employ them.

Given your behavior on this thread, I think that's a quite reasonable question. And even if it's vaguely ad hominen, at least I don't employ them EXCLUSIVELY as my basis of argument.

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Theatened, or took money? You want it both ways. Spare me.

Why can't it be both ways? It wouldn't be a first time folks have been threatened and given money to help shut them up. And do you think the Clinton administration was above intimidating people that threatened them? Tell that to Broaddrick. Willey. Knowlton. Noland Hill. Gennifer Flowers. Katherine Prudhomme. The pathologists and photographer in the Ron Brown case. For that matter, try telling that to the Democrat who led the Impeachment Investigation of Clinton, David Schippers (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...17/ai_72273372 ).

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

In your fantasy world, everyone is corrupt but you.

You really need to stop with the personal attacks, KB. And deal with the facts. But then it seems that according to you, all facts are "irrelevant".

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Like any nutbar conspiracy theorist

Come on, KB. Is this all you have?

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

You don't get to toss out slimy innuendos and then act all offended when I call you on it, BAC.

So asking a simple question that any good investigator would have asked in a situation like that which surrounds Vince Foster's death is "slimy"? Can you tell us why Lisa never mentioned depression until a week after Foster's death? Hmmmmm?

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

You were "just asking questions" in the same manner 9/11 Truthers do.

Wrong. If anything, you are the ones acting like 9/11 Truthers. Go to those threads and you'll find them ignoring the facts ... just like you. You'll find them concocting scenarios out of thin air ... just like you. I'm the one with the witnesses and facts on my side here (and in the Ron Brown case). I'm the one with the experts who haven't proven to be liars. Just like those who have to debunk the Truthers when they misrepresent the facts.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

You think Sheila Anthony's "payment" to Lisa Foster had some influence on Lisa Foster meekly accepting her husband's "murder". Period.

And how do you know it didn't. Again, why was Lisa given $286,000 dollars just before Vince's death? Was it a legal transaction ... or one that she might have wanted to hide? A good investigator would have delved into that ... and into the subject of that meeting in the Whitehouse that occurred just before Lisa and Sheila (and her husband) suddenly changed their stories about Foster's depression. But then Fiske and Starr were anything but ...

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Quote:
I simply asked you why Sheila gave Lisa a quarter million dollars just before his death? And you still haven't answered.

That's because I don't care.

But a REAL skeptic would. You're at the wrong forum.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Quote:
I challenge you to find ONE statement by her in any source you think reliable that shows she mentioned depression to investigators before that meeting in the Whitehouse a week after his death took place. Go ahead.

You're the one who speculated that her calling a psychiatrist on behalf of her brother before his death meant she was laying down a "cover story".

Folks, that's just another way of admitting "I can't find one."

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

I don't know what was said in the meeting. And thus, I don't make even a single tiny claim about that meeting, because any speculation would be utterly unfounded.

Folks, that's just another way of saying "I don't care."

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Quote:
I've already addressed that. Weren't you listening? Notice that Monica Lewinsky didn't come to light until allegations of foul play in the death of Ron Brown by military and civilian pathologists were starting to get attention in some portions of the media and the black community. That drove those allegations from the public's attention because seamy sex will trump mass murder any day of the week. I suggest Starr knew that.

Ah, so the media isn't interested in real journalism and being non-partisan, which is why they had to be distracted from delving too deeply into the Foster and Brown "murders".

Again, you demonstrate you aren't listening. The black community was beginning to ask questions. For example, BET interviewed the pathologist (or should I say stooge) who examined Brown's body (at a time when the government had issued a gag order on all the whistleblowers ... pathologists and photographer ... at AFIP). And BET caught him lying on camera about the case. He had to literally change his story mid-stride ... when confronted with photos of the wound and x-ray that proved his earlier claims false ... to another story that also conflicts with the facts and witness statements. And SOME in the media were beginning to notice. But not after Monica and her sex scandal surfaced. Not after Bill met with the black caucus and Jessie Jackson in the Whitehouse (and gave them some goodies).

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

"By the way, you know why there was blood. They lifted the body and pulled it to the top of the ridge, top of the berm, and once they did that blood started flowing fast. And then when they took the body and put it into the body bag, which was right – in other words they – it was on a slope – they pull it up onto the slope. When the body is horizontal or even at the top of the berm it's not quite horizontal it's a little bit of a back-slope – and all of a sudden the blood starts gushing out, there's a lot of blood then under the body. "

Which of your sources are we to believe, BAC?

Why not both since they describe different time periods of the investigation. Haut's testimony pertains to where Foster's body was supposedly originally seen by him. Before it was moved by EMS personnel. At that location, when they turned the body over, he said he saw little blood and it was coagulated. And Foster's shirt was clean. AFTER the EMS personnel moved the body, however, to the top of the ridge, the blood started flowing from the body. Why are those two versions at all inconsistent? Perhaps because you don't understand what either was actually talking about?

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

That is completely false.

No. It is true. Your alleged witness list is so poor that the vast majority of hardcore Republicans consider it to be nonsense.

Quote:

Not true. Vince Foster was involved in a variety of activities that might have gotten him killed.

No. You think he was involved with these things. But they are products of your imagination.

Quote:

We also know that Foster made a number of overnight (i.e., one day) trips to Switzerland between 1991 and 1993. On July 1, 1998, just weeks before he died, he apparently purchased another ticket to Switzerland. But he never used that one. Can you tell us why he made all those trips to Switzerland but canceled the one just before his death? Maybe it had something to do with the stress you folks say he was experiencing? Or is that just as mysterious and "irrelevant" as the $286,000 payment to Lisa that you want to ignore?

Again you make sleazy insinuations, without anything real.

Quote:

Yes, KB ... bury your head ... rather than deal with what that oven mitt and so much other evidence is trying to tell you.

And your oven mitt is sooooooooo convincing that you've managed to convince.....Galileo. Congratulations. You must be so proud.

Quote:

Given your behavior on this thread, I think that's a quite reasonable question.

My behavior in this thread? Dude, most of my posts were countering your buddy Galileo's trollery and nonsense. Then you barge in replying to me (and Fullmenthol) trying to declare that Foster wasn't depressed. And antic which you failed utterly at (but not by my hand). I didn't return to the thread until you sleazily implied that Foster's widow is taking money to keep quiet, a sleazy insinuation worthy of the Ramona Africa crowd. I called you on it, and you whined. Get over it.

I know Republicans who absolutely LOATHE Clinton, but if you bring up Foster they shake their heads and gripe about 'that kook nonsense' the same way the Average Democrat rolled their eyes at 'Bush is gonna declare Martial Law before the inauguration' kooks.

You've thrown out lots of names, and lots of allegations and seem to consider that some kind of excellent arguement, but your sources stink, your allegations are empty, slanderous and sleazy. You've managed to convince nobody except an admitted troll. Oh wait, he was already convinced.

Way to go.

I'm out of this thread now. You've proven that you share the characteristics of almost all Conspiracy nuts where only they are pure and every other person can be bought off, cheap. I don't need to do any more.

[oldhat]

LOL, I knew Holocaust-denying Rense.com was going to make an appearance in this thread eventually. Great job, BAC, raising a glass to you for helping me win a bet with myself! Also, you're citing Newsmax, which is owned by, you guessed it, Christopher Ruddy.

BTW, do you have any sources whatsoever that aren't sourced by Chris Ruddy and/or UFO websites? In the interest of credibility?

Let me get this straight, now you're saying Swiss bankers were involved in the conspiracy? That seems to be what you're implying but won't outright say because you don't have any evidence.

It's amusing how you never exactly come out and say who did what and who pulled the trigger and what the quarter million dollars were for but instead just sprinkle little insinuations and innuendos and annoying little around your posts like scattering chickenfeed.

P.S. BAC, David Brock admitted to making this conspiracy up. I'm not sure why you're fixated on the oven mitt and refuse to even acknowledge Brock's damning statements on the fabrication of this conspiracy theory. It's in his book. Read the Vanity Fair article for starters. I know you won't but you should. It's not long.

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Why not both since they describe different time periods of the investigation. Haut's testimony pertains to where Foster's body was supposedly originally seen by him. Before it was moved by EMS personnel. At that location, when they turned the body over, he said he saw little blood and it was coagulated. And Foster's shirt was clean. AFTER the EMS personnel moved the body, however, to the top of the ridge, the blood started flowing from the body. Why are those two versions at all inconsistent? Perhaps because you don't understand what either was actually talking about?

Let me try and make this nice and clear for you.

The theory you promote, cribbed from Knowlton and all those conspiracy websites, argues that Foster was murdered because when his body was found in the park, the blood which should have surrounded the body had he shot himself then and there is either nonexistent or old and dried, "proving" that Foster was killed elsewhere long before his "supposed" suicide and his corpse dumped in the park.

Unfortunately for that theory, as Rodriguez notes, his body was actually full of liquid blood that gushed out as soon as his body was moved, soaking his clothes.

Even worse, since his blood did gush out of his body and soak his clothes as soon as the body was moved, and his shirt was not all bloody when he was first found, it means that Foster wasn't killed long before his "supposed" suicide and his corpse dumped in the park, but instead died right there where his body was found and he died right when the "official theory" said he died (else his clothes would have been all bloody and no blood would have gushed out easily when his body was moved, in contrast with the way things actually were).

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

So asking a simple question that any good investigator would have asked in a situation like that which surrounds Vince Foster's death is "slimy"?

"Just Asking Questions" doesn't work for Truthers, and it won't work for you.

Quote:

Wrong. If anything, you are the ones acting like 9/11 Truthers. Go to those threads and you'll find them ignoring the facts ... just like you. You'll find them concocting scenarios out of thin air ... just like you.

You're the one creating a conspiracy theory where everyone from Foster's own wife and sister to his long-time family doctor back in Arkansas to random DC psychiatrists is in on the cover-up, where Foster's sister paid half a million dollars to his wife to ensure her agreement in said cover-up, where Foster's murdered corpse had to have been drained of blood and his clothes dry cleaned before being smuggled out of the White House to be dumped in the park (where it was refilled with blood so it could gush out when the body was moved a second time after being found there), and where some mysterious meeting between lawyers is where the apparently the entire plot was cooked up a week after the fact. And you accuse me of "concocting theories out of thin air"?

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Quote:

And how do you know it didn't.

Your theory, you provide evidence. And "how do you know my utterly baseless theory isn't true, huh?" isn't evidence, no matter what you might think.

Quote:

But a REAL skeptic would. You're at the wrong forum.

Your theory, you provide evidence.

I think you're at the wrong forum, if you honestly believe it doesn't work that way.

Quote:

Folks, that's just another way of admitting "I can't find one."

Your theory, you provide evidence.

Quote:

Folks, that's just another way of saying "I don't care."

Your theory, you provide evidence.

I can do this all day if you like, though I'd rather not.

Quote:

Again, you demonstrate you aren't listening. The black community was beginning to ask questions. For example, BET interviewed the pathologist (or should I say stooge) who examined Brown's body (at a time when the government had issued a gag order on all the whistleblowers ... pathologists and photographer ... at AFIP). And BET caught him lying on camera about the case. He had to literally change his story mid-stride ... when confronted with photos of the wound and x-ray that proved his earlier claims false ... to another story that also conflicts with the facts and witness statements. And SOME in the media were beginning to notice. But not after Monica and her sex scandal surfaced. Not after Bill met with the black caucus and Jessie Jackson in the Whitehouse (and gave them some goodies).

So now your theory includes the idea that the media can only cover one story at a time, and so in order to cover the Monica Lewinsky thing at all, they had to drop the Ron Brown (and presumably Vince Foster) investigations completely?

I don't even know what to say any more.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
That is completely false.

No. It is true. Your alleged witness list is so poor

Get that folks? According to KB, a witness list that includes the first (and only) doctor to see Foster at the death site, all the EMS personnel, the first person to find Foster's body, another civilian who was at the park at the time Foster supposedly was killed, several Park police officers who witnessed the death scene, the FBI agents who took the statements of Foster's family members and his personal doctor, three experts in handwriting, and Starr's own top investigator before he quit the IOC in disgust charging a coverup ... is "poor". See how desperate KB has become?

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

You think he was involved with these things. But they are products of your imagination.

Wrong, KB.

For example, it is established fact that Foster was involved in dealing with Whitewater for the Clintons, and that there were Whitewater related documents in his office at the time of his death. These were documents that a court had ordered be turned over as evidence in a criminal matter. These were documents that were then moved to the Clinton's Whitehouse residence after Foster's death and kept there until their *discovery* shortly after the statute of limitation on Whitewater had expired. In fact, it's a story of lies and liars. Par for the Clinton Administration.

Read this (a liberal source): http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/03/us...tml?sec=health "THE WHITEWATER AFFAIR: WHITE HOUSE; New Misstatements Admitted In Handling of Foster's Files ... snip ... August 3, 1994"

Read this (a liberal source): http://www-cgi.cnn.com/US/9511/white...-30/index.html "Whitewater panel to question Hillary Clinton, November 30, 1995"

Read this (another liberal source): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../01301996.html "The Whitewater Lost And Found Records, January 30, 1996".

Read this (still another liberal source): http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white...port_6-18.html "OPENING THE FLOOD GATES?, JUNE 18, 1996"

Read this (again, a liberal source): http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...llary%20Rodham "Hillary Clinton's Fingerprints Among Those Found on Papers ... snip ... June 5, 1996"

And I could go on and on and on posting sources to back up what I stated.

And guess what job that proven liar, Maggie Williams, got during Hillary's campaign? Campaign manager, of course. http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=68428

And guess who advised the Clinton's to stonewall the Whitewater investigation? Why Lisa Foster's lawyer, of course.

You don't have to be a genius to put 2 and 2 together here, KB.

As for the other statements I made, they as just as verifiable.

For example, we not only KNOW that Foster was responsible for preparing the Clinton's blind trust and that he was months late (how can you not be aware of that), but also that three days after his death, the trust declarations were suddenly delivered to the trustees, with Vince Foster's "signature" on them. What a coincidence. He probably knew more about the Clinton's shady dealings (like those 1000% cattle future investments) than anyone else. Which might be reason enough for the Clinton's to worry if he was starting to become unreliable.

For example, we know that Foster wrote a memo in which he stated “Whitewater is a can of worms that you should NOT open!” (The Washington Times, July 15, 1995). He probably knew more about the Clinton's involvement in Whitewater than anyone else. Which might be reason enough for the Clinton's to worry if he was starting to become unreliable.

Now I can't stop you from ignoring facts like these or being incapable of connecting dots. But I can demonstrate your ignorance (or desperation) when you make statements like you just did.

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Again you make sleazy insinuations, without anything real.

Tell that to the London Sunday Telegraph which discovered and reported Foster's trips to Switzerland. Here, from their May 22, 1995 article:

Quote:

The records show that Foster bough a ticket to Switzerland during that early phase of the Clinton presidential bid -- traveling on American Airlines from Little Rock to Paris with a connection to Geneva on Swiss Air. The return flight was booked for November 3, giving him less than one full day on the ground in Switzerland. The cost was $1490.

A year later he did exactly the same thing, darting in and out of the country on December 7, 1992 -- during the presidential transition period -- he bought a ticket from Little Rock to Geneva, via Paris, returning on December 9.

Finally, on July 1, 1993, he purchased a ticket through the White House Travel Office from Washington to Geneva on TWA and Swiss Air, reimbursing the White House from his personal American Express card. But he never made the trip and was refunded by Swiss Air on July 8.

Why'd he take those brief trips to Switzerland, KB? Are you going to keep your head in the ground? Are you gullible enough to believe he was just sightseeing?

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Then you barge in replying to me (and Fullmenthol) trying to declare that Foster wasn't depressed.

Stop misrepresenting what I said. I said (in fact I PROVED) he wasn't "clinically depressed", as claimed in the Fiske and Starr reports.

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

I didn't return to the thread until you sleazily implied that Foster's widow is taking money to keep quiet

Stop misrepresenting what I said. I also said we need to know why she reportedly received $286,000 just before Foster's death because that might have some bearing on the reason for his death ... if it was murder. The truth is we don't know the facts. But if Fiske or Starr had been good investigators, we would. And we might now be looking at Foster's death in a new light.

Tell me, KB. Would you join me in asking the government to release the photos of Foster's body? If your side of this debate is correct, those photos will clearly show a 1 inche hole in the back of Foster's head where the Fiske and Starr reports claimed the bullet exited his body. If my side (with all the eyewitnesses I named) is correct, they will not show such a hole but instead show a wound in the neck (whose existance Fiske and Starr ruled out). We could settle this debate with that simple act. So will you join me in demanding the photos be released? Or are you still hiding?

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

You've managed to convince nobody except an admitted troll.

Then why are you so concerned? Why don't you just ignore me? Oh wait, you can't, can you.

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

I'm out of this thread now.

Bye bye.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by oldhat

P.S. BAC, David Brock admitted to making this conspiracy up.

So you've claimed. But for some reason you don't seem able to actually provide a source that says that or quotes him saying that.

Originally Posted by oldhat

I'm not sure why you're fixated on the oven mitt

Really? You can't understand why evidence showing that Starr fabricated evidence to bolster the suicide myth is important?

Originally Posted by oldhat

and refuse to even acknowledge Brock's damning statements on the fabrication of this conspiracy theory.

You haven't actually quoted any "damning statements". But I have posted several sources that seem to show David Brock is a well established liar.

Originally Posted by oldhat

It's in his book.

Then quote to us from his book. Don't be shy.

Originally Posted by oldhat

Read the Vanity Fair article for starters.

Go ahead and link us to it. Bet it doesn't say what you claimed either. Ball's in your court.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Why not both since they describe different time periods of the investigation. Haut's testimony pertains to where Foster's body was supposedly originally seen by him. Before it was moved by EMS personnel. At that location, when they turned the body over, he said he saw little blood and it was coagulated. And Foster's shirt was clean. AFTER the EMS personnel moved the body, however, to the top of the ridge, the blood started flowing from the body. Why are those two versions at all inconsistent? Perhaps because you don't understand what either was actually talking about?

Let me try and make this nice and clear for you.

Folks, that's just another way of saying .... "oooops!"

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
So asking a simple question that any good investigator would have asked in a situation like that which surrounds Vince Foster's death is "slimy"?

"Just Asking Questions" doesn't work for Truthers, and it won't work for you.

Except you are the one acting like a Truther.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Quote:
Wrong. If anything, you are the ones acting like 9/11 Truthers. Go to those threads and you'll find them ignoring the facts ... just like you. You'll find them concocting scenarios out of thin air ... just like you.

You're the one creating a conspiracy theory where everyone from Foster's own wife and sister

I'm the one arguing with the actual facts and eyewitness statements. You're the one taking at face value statements by Foster's wife and sister (who was deeply involved in the Clinton's affairs) that changed 180 degrees between the night of his death and a week later ... just after a meeting in the Whitehouse where everyone who did change their story was present.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

to his long-time family doctor back in Arkansas

Who didn't say Foster was "clinically depressed" (as you and Starr claim) but said has mildly depressed (which is not the same thing). I'm the one taking the doctor's statements as as they stand ... without throwing in my own interpretation of what he really meant to say.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

where Foster's sister paid half a million dollars to his wife

At least make an attempt to regurgitate the facts correctly.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

to ensure her agreement in said cover-up

Payment OR NOT, it may be related to the reason for a murder. It may be why she might want the public to believe it was suicide because obviously she was involved since the payment was made to her. The fact is we don't know all the facts in regard to this case. You claim we do, but clearly we don't. We don't know why the payment was made. Perhaps it involved something illegal. In which case that could be used as leverage to keep both Lisa and Sheila quiet. As leverage to make them both (and Sheila's husband) change their stories so dramatically. This should be obvious.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

where Foster's murdered corpse had to have been drained of blood

No one has alleged that. Again, you completely misrepresent the actual statements of the witnesses like Dr Haut and the EMS personnel, of Rodriguez, of Knowlton. One would think that you'd be smart enough to just say "oooops" and drop the matter before providing even further evidence of how desperate you are in this debate. Why are you so concerned that Foster's death be a suicide? I asked KB, now I'll ask you. Will you join me in demanding that the photos of Foster's corpse be released? So we can see if there was a wound in the back of Foster's head or whether it was in the neck?

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

and his clothes dry cleaned before being smuggled out of the White House

Obviously that didn't happen since they found carpet fibers on Foster's clothes. But his shoes were spotless. Neither Mike Wallace or several other investigators were able to reproduce that after walking the route that Foster is claimed to have walked enroute to the *suicide* site.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

where some mysterious meeting between lawyers

Well at least you are starting to admit it was mysterious. And still is because obviously you can't tell us what it was about or what was said at the meeting. We can only gauge what was said based on the behavior of those who attended the meeting. And they all changed their story about Foster's depression 180 degrees after the meeting. Be a REAL skeptic and connect the dots.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

And you accuse me of "concocting theories out of thin air"?

None of the above are theories. They are facts. A theory would be saying Foster shot himself because of he was depressed. A theory that seems counter to many of those facts. As noted by me and ignored by you.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Quote:
Folks, that's just another way of admitting "I can't find one."

Your theory, you provide evidence.

You're asking me to provide evidence of statements that you claim exist, but that I assert don't exist? You want proof of nonexistence by my finding a statement proving existence? Surely you can see the logical flaw in that? Like you said ... "I don't even know what to say any more."

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Folks, that's just another way of saying .... "oooops!"

Missed the point again, I see.

Quote:

I'm the one arguing with the actual facts and eyewitness statements.

No you're not. You're using the typical conspiracy theorist tactic of taking something unknown, saying "could it be X?" without any basis in fact whatsoever, and then pretending that X is now established fact by using it prop up your next speculation, and so on and so forth until you've constructed a giant house of cards on a foundation of nothing.

In other words, you can't just say "Hmm...the US military's response on 9/11 was awfully slow...could there have been a stand-down order?", then demand that we explain why there was a stand-down order issued on 9/11. You have to first prove that there actually was a stand-down order.

Quote:

Who didn't say Foster was "clinically depressed" (as you and Starr claim) but said has mildly depressed (which is not the same thing). I'm the one taking the doctor's statements as as they stand ... without throwing in my own interpretation of what he really meant to say.

The only person claiming Foster's family doctor said he was clinically depressed is you. I never claimed that. Starr certainly never claimed that (he came to his conclusion of clinical depression based on a large number of factors, only one of which was Foster's doctor's diagnosis of mild depression, in what's called a consilience of evidence, which I'm surprised you don't know about, given your oft-claimed credentials as a "skeptic").

This is your strawman, built so you can try and dismiss Foster's depression entirely (though now I see you admit Foster's family doctor saw signs of depression in him, something you went to great pains to try and deny earlier).

Quote:

At least make an attempt to regurgitate the facts correctly.

I'm sorry. $286,000.

Not that it changes anything about what I said.

Quote:

Payment OR NOT, it may be related to the reason for a murder. It may be why she might want the public to believe it was suicide because obviously she was involved since the payment was made to her. The fact is we don't know all the facts in regard to this case. You claim we do, but clearly we don't. We don't know why the payment was made. Perhaps it involved something illegal. In which case that could be used as leverage to keep both Lisa and Sheila quiet. As leverage to make them both (and Sheila's husband) change their stories so dramatically. This should be obvious.

See, this is what I was talking about above. You have zero idea what the payment was all about. You speculate that it was "related to the reason for a murder", but you have no evidence for that. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

And yet, you have no compunctions about transforming your conspiratorial explanations into an integral part of your theory, taking your speculations as actual fact, and demanding that we explain it away to your satisfaction, when it's you who needs to provide evidence to back up your speculations.

Quote:

Why are you so concerned that Foster's death be a suicide?

Why are you so concerned that it be a murder?

Quote:

Obviously that didn't happen since they found carpet fibers on Foster's clothes. But his shoes were spotless. Neither Mike Wallace or several other investigators were able to reproduce that after walking the route that Foster is claimed to have walked enroute to the *suicide* site.

Yeesh. This is a stretch that would strain even Reed Richards.

Tuesday morning I walked from my apartment to my car, and when I got in my car there were bits of grass all over them. Both yesterday morning and this morning when I got in my car, my shoes were spotless.

According to you, that must mean someone must be carrying me from my apartment to my car now, right? Otherwise why aren't my shoes affected the exact same way after walking the exact same route?

Quote:

Well at least you are starting to admit it was mysterious.

Sorry, I didn't mean mysterious. I meant "mysterious".

Quote:

And still is because obviously you can't tell us what it was about or what was said at the meeting.

No, I can't. That's why I'm not making any claims about what was said in that meeting.

The thing is, you can't tell us what it was about or what was said at the meeting, either. If you claim to know, you have to provide actual evidence for your claim, and despite what you seem to think, guesswork filtered through a conspiracy-oriented weltanschauung isn't actually evidence.

Quote:

You're asking me to provide evidence of statements that you claim exist, but that I assert don't exist?

No, as noted above, I'm asking you to provide evidence of things that you do claim exist. Like what the $286,000 was really for, or what was discussed in that meeting.

Or the "real reason" why Sheila Anthony went so far as to call a psychiatrist on behalf of her depressed brother the Friday before he died.

[oldhat]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Sorry, OH, but you haven't shown the facts in any source I cited (and you completely mischaracterize them, btw, in an obvious and desperate attempt to make this go away) are wrong.

On the front page of Rense right now:

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/hirzholly_dees.jpg

Edited by Myriad:

hotlink to image replaced with hyperlink

Do not hotlink images unless the site hosting them explicitly permits hotlinking of their images.

Posted By:Myriad

First article on AIM right now. Socialist NWO, blah blah blah.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/u.n.-r...ld-government/

WhatReallyHappened.com:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...ESUSFAMILY.php

Jews killed/are still killing Jesus, etc.

Your sources ooze credibility.

[oldhat]

I don't have the book handy but I found an index for "Blinded by the Right," check out these pages:

pp. 151, 157, 189, 190, 201-206, 210, 225, 227, 228, 230, 231, 250, 251, 258, 286, 300, 308, 333.

The Vanity Fair Esquire article is not online.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Missed the point again, I see.

I see you still don't want to admit you totally misinterpreted (misrepresented?) the context of what Haut, Rodriquez and Knowlton were talking about in the above statements.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Quote:
I'm the one arguing with the actual facts and eyewitness statements.

No you're not.

I'm perfectly content to let anyone reading this thread and the previous thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=129329 ) decide which of us has the facts and eyewitnesses on his side. I invite readers to read both threads in their entirety ... so they can know who is actually stating the facts (rather than misrepresenting them, as you just did in your last posts) and who has the actual facts and the actual eyewitness statements supporting his position. And I invite our readers to decide which of us is ignoring 99% of the facts and eyewitness statements.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

You're using the typical conspiracy theorist tactic of taking something unknown

False. I'm taking things that are actually known ... I listed a few in the previous post ... and showing how they are inconsistent with the official story of suicide due to clinical depression.

And I seem to be the only one concerned about things we don't know ... like the subject of that meeting in the Whitehouse a week after Foster's death, what material was removed from Foster's office the night he died, who fabricated the suicide note, why Foster made one day trips to Switzerland, why Sheila Anthony paid Lisa Foster a quarter million dollars shortly before Foster's death, why Starr's report altered what Lisa told FBI agents, why so many eyewitnesses say there was no gun and that the body was moved, why so many eyewitnesses say there was no head wound but there was a neck wound instead, and why the Clinton's blind trust was finished only days after Foster died. You? You just admit you "don't care" about these unknowns.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

saying "could it be X?" without any basis in fact whatsoever

I'll leave it to readers to decide if that's not yet another gross misrepresentation of the situation too.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

and so on and so forth until you've constructed a giant house of cards on a foundation of nothing.

ROTFLOL!

The real house of cards is the one you are standing on ... the one whose foundation is the bogus claim that Foster was clinically depressed. Depression wasn't mentioned by any witnesses prior to the meeting in the Whitehouse a week after Foster died. Even Foster's doctor only said he had only mild depression and that by treating his insomnia he'd feel much better.

The real house of cards is the one whose foundation requires there be an inch diameter hole in the back of Foster's head. That foundation is on quicksand because not one of the eyewitnesses saw that wound, the pathologist who described it in his autopsy has been proven to be a liar, and because many of the eyewitnesses instead said there was an exit wound in Foster's neck, which the IOC specifically ruled out. Even Starr's top investigator, Rodriguez, says the one photo he had access to showed a wound in Foster's neck. That's a house of cards that will topple the moment a single photo of Foster's head escapes the government's hands. Feeling nervous? Maybe you should be. Remember, there is no statute of limitation on murder.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

The only person claiming Foster's family doctor said he was clinically depressed is you.

I NEVER said that. Quit misrepresenting what I said.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

I never claimed that. Starr certainly never claimed that

And learn to read. I didn't say you or Starr said the family doctor said Foster was clinically depressed. I said that you and Starr claim he was clinically depressed. Which the doctor's statements clearly contradict.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

(he came to his conclusion of clinical depression based on a large number of factors

Yeah. Such as claiming that his family and friends said he was depressed when interviewed after his death ... a lie. Such as the analysis of a *quack* who was "100% certain" about his conclusion. You can tell he was a quack by the "100%".

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

so you can try and dismiss Foster's depression entirely (though now I see you admit Foster's family doctor saw signs of depression in him, something you went to great pains to try and deny earlier).

And again, you totally misrepresent the facts. In my very first post on this thread (#132), when I first mention the family doctor, I stated that the "doctor indicated whatever depression Foster was experiencing was 'mild'". Clearly I did not "go to great pains to try and deny" the doctor said Foster was depressed. I only maintained that his testimony directly contradicts the assertion of Fiske, Starr and you that Foster was "clinically" depressed. So you are caught being {wrong}, once again.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

You have zero idea what the payment was all about.

That's true. But if Fiske and Starr had reason to even suspect foul play, and the facts show they did, then finding out the reason for that payment would be something a competent investigator would do. You have to admit that Lisa receiving a check for $286,000 probably wasn't something that happened every day. And when one looks at the timing (four days before Foster's death), the job title of the person who gave Lisa the check (a top Clinton administration official), and the fact that key witnesses radically changed their testimony immediately after the meeting, a good investigator should have been at least a little inquisitive. But these investigators didn't probe the payment or circumstances of the meeting at all. Which suggests they either weren't very competent or they deliberately chose not to ask questions. It's almost as if Fiske and Starr, like you, simply didn't care.

But people should care. Because these people are still running our government. People should be asking who was at that meeting which took place just two days before Lisa was scheduled to be questioned by Fiske for the first time ... just before she changed her story 180 degrees with regards to Foster being depressed. People should be asking what transpired at the meeting. Because Fiske and Starr certainly didn't.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Quote:
Why are you so concerned that Foster's death be a suicide?

Why are you so concerned that it be a murder?

Why shouldn't one be concerned that a possible murder of a top government official was covered up? Let's put it this way. I'm not invested in there being a murder but in finding out the actual truth. In clearing up some very clear discrepancies between facts and witnesses and the government's story. I'll drop this matter if the photos of Foster's body are released and they show a big hole in the back of Foster's head and none on the neck. Satisfied?

Furthermore, I'll stop voicing my concerns in the Ron Brown case, if they exhume the body and a group of independent pathologists (monitored by the original whistleblowers) conclude there is no evidence of a bullet entering Brown's head. I'm perfectly willing to accept the obvious. But apparently you aren't.

I'll ask you again, since you ignored me the last time ... will you join in demanding that the photos of Foster's body be released to the public so we can know once and for all whether Starr's report is correct in it's description of the wound? Or are you content to let doubt rule? And if so, why?

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Quote:
You're asking me to provide evidence of statements that you claim exist, but that I assert don't exist?

No

You continue to misrepresent conversations. You challenged my statement that Lisa Foster didn't tell investigators about Foster's depression for a week after his death. So I specifically asked you to provide "ONE statement by her (i.e., Lisa Foster) in any source you think reliable that shows she mentioned depression to investigators before that meeting in the Whitehouse a week after his death took place." Your non-responsive answer elicited a statement from me that "that's just another way of admitting 'I can't find one.'" To which you responded "Your theory, you provide evidence." So clearly you were asking me to provide evidence of statements you claim exist but that I assert don't exist. A logical impossibility for me.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by oldhat

I don't have the book handy but I found an index for "Blinded by the Right," check out these pages:

pp. 151, 157, 189, 190, 201-206, 210, 225, 227, 228, 230, 231, 250, 251, 258, 286, 300, 308, 333.

The Vanity Fair Esquire article is not online.

ROTFLOL! Which is just another way of admitting that you can't prove what you claim.

Tell you what, OH ... when you finally do get access to these *important* sources you claim you are soooooo familiar with, you be sure to post quotes from them that you think prove what you claimed about the Foster allegations. But be careful, I just might verify them.

[oldhat]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

ROTFLOL! Which is just another way of admitting that you can't prove what you claim.

Er, no. I just gave you the references. I gave you the page numbers so you don't even have to read the whole book. That's what indexes are for. You can go read them at the liberry if you can figure out how to operate Lexis or the microfiche machine.

Did you want me to wave my magic pixie wand and put the book and the article on the internet for you?

Here's the thing, I know giving you references is pointless because I know you won't bother reading them, because they're, like, made out of paper with woodpulp and ink and stuff and totally not on the Internet and therefore they're meaningless in your warped CTist worldview. Which is indicative of how insincere you are about the "truth," because you won't read anything that isn't pre-chewed CT that AIM and your UFO, Jew-hating sites spoonfeed you.

You act like cutting and pasting a bunch of paragraphs from WhatReallyHappened.com and Chris Ruddy's dubious research is some great intellectual endeavor. It's not. It's a little pathetic how much time you've put into being lead around by the nose by partisan hacks who created a myth out of whole cloth 15 years ago to deceive people and "drive up Clinton's negatives." The Republicans who invented this stuff don't even take it seriously anymore.

Now we discover late in the game that Swiss bankers were in on the plot. It doesn't take a genius to see where this is going. Why am I even trying to reason with you...?

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by oldhat

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
ROTFLOL! Which is just another way of admitting that you can't prove what you claim.

Er, no. I just gave you the references.

And we should just trust you? After you claimed several other things on this thread that I've proven aren't true. Like your claim that the three other sources you linked proved what you claimed about the Foster allegation being fabricated. I caught you being dishonest there, so why should I believe you are being honest now? It's not my job to find the quotes you CLAIM prove what you CLAIMED about the Foster allegation. Like I said, when you get the exact quotes from your latest batch of sources, post them. Until then, I think folks should base their opinion on your track record so far.

Originally Posted by oldhat

if you can figure out how to operate Lexis or the microfiche machine.

I'm not the one having difficulty posting exact quotes. You are.

Originally Posted by oldhat

Here's the thing, I know giving you references is pointless because I know you won't bother reading them

That's demonstrably false. I read the last three references you actually linked (see post #239, since you apparently didn't "bother reading" it) and guess what? They don't say what you claimed they said. You were dishonest. And my guess is you are still being dishonest. And you think you can get away with it because you know no one is likely to go to the library and waste the time looking up your supposed *sources*.

Originally Posted by oldhat

because you won't read anything that isn't pre-chewed CT that AIM and your UFO, Jew-hating sites spoonfeed you.

A statement that I've proved repeatedly on this thread is completely false. But thanks for proving my point about you ... AGAIN.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Such as the analysis of a *quack* who was "100% certain" about his conclusion. You can tell he was a quack by the "100%".

How certain are you of your conclusions?

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

How certain are you of your conclusions?

Not 100%, but enough to demand that the government release the photos of Foster's body so we can know for certain whether there is a exit wound in the back of the head or the neck. You'll join me in that demand, won't you? (Notice, folks, that not one of the others has done that. )

[oldhat]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Not 100%, but enough to demand that the government release the photos of Foster's body so we can know for certain whether there is a exit wound in the back of the head or the neck. You'll join me in that demand, won't you? (Notice, folks, that not one of the others has done that. )

More corpse porn evidence to analyze, BAC?

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

You'll join me in that demand, won't you?

When you're 100% convinced, come back to me.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

When you're 100% convinced, come back to me.

Is this true, MB? Do you demand 100% certainty before an investigation into whether crimes have been committed? I guess were you in control, our jails would soon be empty.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Is this true, MB? Do you demand 100% certainty before an investigation into whether crimes have been committed?

No. Your reading comprehension is failing you.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

No. Your reading comprehension is failing you.

So then you only demand 100% certainty in the case of Vince Foster? Did you not like the guy?

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

So then you only demand 100% certainty in the case of Vince Foster? Did you not like the guy?

No. Your reading comprehension is failing you.

[7forever]

Vince was shot twice. A shot to the back of the throat that resulted in a dime sized exit wound on the back of his neck. The other shot entered under his right jawline, going backward and upward, entering the base of the skull without exiting his skull. Vince was murdered without a doubt.

[7forever]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

I am not mixed up at all. The evidence shows that Foster was very depressed and committed suicide. No conspiracy about it at all. Just evidence.

Vince was not depressed. That was made up after his death.

[7forever]

"Don't believe a word you hear. It was not suicide. It couldn't have been." -Assistant Attorney General Webster Hubbell, 7/20/93, cited in Esquire, 11/93.

[7forever]

Please bear in mind that the purpose of this catalog is rather modest. I merely want to highlight what I see as a large number of gross "peculiarities" surrounding the Foster case. I hope to convey to the reader some sense of the sheer weight of over 100 discrepancies and unanswered questions. Also bear in mind that the number "101" is itself a modest number. As a practical matter, I was forced to omit dozens of striking anomalies.

As you read this long list, consider that Vince Foster's death was almost immediately labeled a suicide by the U.S. Park Police. Normal procedure in the case of a violent death is to treat it as a homicide until all doubts are resolved. Despite this, a homicide investigation was never launched. Even before the death scene or the body had been inspected, a suicide confirmation process was under way. In her sworn Senate testimony, senior Park Police officer Cheryl Braun said, "We made that determination [of suicide] prior to going up and looking at the body." From that point on, all police and FBI efforts were directed toward collecting evidence that would support the suicide verdict. No effort has ever been made to seek or collect evidence supporting a possible homicide.

Edited by Gaspode:

Breach of Rule 4 removed. Text copied from http://webspace.webring.com/people/m...y2/foster.html Please don't copy large sections of text from a copyrighted source. As a guideline, quote a paragraph or two and provide a link to the original.

[7forever]

Edited by Gaspode:

Breach of Rule 4 removed.

[7forever]

Edited by Gaspode:

Breach of Rule 4 removed.

[7forever]

Here's the link to 101 anomalies in the foster death.

http://www.prorev.com/foster.htm

[Arus808]

thanks for joining a thread, for which you didn't read through before posting. seeing that we addressed this already in the first few pages

[7forever]

Originally Posted by Galileo

I don't buy into the OCT conspiracy theory. That's official.

Defending an innocent man is not a conspiracy theory.

Ya right; Vince ate a cheeseburger and fries and told Linda Tripp he'd back but decided he'd drive to a park and blow his brains on a steep hill 5 hours later. Total and complete nonsense from top to bottom. He was a mild mannered family man with three children. Just another homicide faked out.

[TSR]

Originally Posted by 7forever

Here's the link to 101 anomalies in the foster death.

.
And where are the links to citations that show these "anomalies" weren't just pulled out of someone's ... fevered imagination?
.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by TSR

.
And where are the links to citations that show these "anomalies" weren't just pulled out of someone's ... fevered imagination?
.

You know your problem, TSR? Like most of the nay-sayers to the allegation of foul play in the death of Vince Foster, you're just lazy. You don't want to know the truth in the Vince Foster case so you close your eyes and then never open them. As an example of this, consider the first anomaly listed at the link 7forever cited, http://webspace.webring.com/people/m...y2/foster.html :

Quote:

1. The man who discovered the body in Ft. Marcy Park says he was curious about the cause of death and looked closely for a gun. He emphatically says there was no gun in either hand. The FBI put great pressure on this witness to change his testimony. Why? Did he interrupt the staging of a suicide that was only completed after he left the scene?

Notice that it claims the following as fact: (1) the man who discovered the body said he looked closely for a gun. (2) he emphatically said there was no gun in either hand. (3) the FBI put pressure on him to change his story. Now in this very thread I posted links to back up those three assertions so you apparently didn't bother to actually read this thread … suggesting, as I said, that you don't really want to know the facts.

Post #125 has a link to an interview with the civilian identified as "CW" (confidential witness) in his FBI interviews and depositions. In that interview, seven years after Foster's death, he stated he found Foster "Face straight up. Hands on each side of his body straight away." (Both are inconsistent with the photos released by Fiske and Starr ... photos that Starr's own investigator questioned). In the interview, CW also said "I looked to see if he had something in his hands that he could defend himself with - maybe a rock or something like that. ... snip ... that's why I was so adamant and so sure [that Foster had no gun]. Because I clearly looked at both hands. And they were straight down by his sides, fully extended, straight as can be, and both hands were palm up." He also stated that the FBI interviewed him four times and he said "they asked me, I would say in the neighborhood of at least five or six times, 'Are you sure there was no gun in his hand?'" in the first of those interviews alone. And according to him in that link, they kept badgering him with the same question over and over in the other three interviews. Yes, they did pressure him to change his story.

Furthermore, as I noted in post #125,Congressman Burton stated on the floor of the House on October 26, 1995, that he and two other Congressmen went to CW's house and took a sworn statement from him in which he told them "He was within 18 inches of Mr. Foster's face. He looked very carefully and saw no gun in either hand . He was very clear in his statement, in the sworn statement before me and the FBI, that when he found Foster, both hands were palm up with the thumbs pointed out away from the body. When the police arrived on the scene, they found his right hand palm down with the thumb pointed in, the gun on the trigger finger, and the gun was partially obscured by his hand and his leg." And I direct your attention to posts number #211 and #239 where I provided a link to Congressman Burton's statements to that effect.

So you really have no excuse for questioning the first item in that 101 peculiarities list, TSR. And if necessary I bet could prove you are just as close-minded and willfully ignorant about the facts with regards the rest.

[TSR]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Furthermore, as I noted in post #125

.
Which post states, in its entirety:

Originally Posted by Galileo

The evidence is in the film.

.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=125

Try again.

As to your "quotes" of Congressman Burton, why don't you cite the Congressional Record rather than a rather unreliable conspiracy site?

Are you afraid of the truth?
.

[7forever]

Vince Foster was shot twice resulting in a 'no exit wound' through his skull but a small exit wound on the back of his neck.

http://www.allanfavish.com/anatomy.htm

Those who examined this aspect of the autopsy report (186 KB) prior to Rob Bracci missed or misunderstood the potential significance of the doctor's location of the first entrance wound at the posterior oropharynx (as opposed to in the "posterior nasopharynx" - the back wall of the throat just above the oropharynx).

First, although the autopsy doctor stated that the first entrance wound (presumably an important location to identify in a gunshot autopsy) was in the "posterior oropharynx at a point 7.5" from the top of he head," the reviewing doctors' report did not mention the initial entrance wound in the posterior oropharynx. Indeed, the reviewing doctors omitted any reference to the posterior oropharynx as being part of the wound track!

Second, the reviewing doctors reported the first entrance wound as having been in the soft palate, not the posterior oropharynx ("the bullet perforated the soft palate" - the "defect" language of the autopsy doctor has vanished and been replaced with the word "perforated").

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by TSR

Try again.

I'm sorry. That should have been post #135, not #125, but then you'd have known which post I was referring to if you bothered to actually read this thread. Like I said, LAZY.

Originally Posted by TSR

As to your "quotes" of Congressman Burton, why don't you cite the Congressional Record rather than a rather unreliable conspiracy site?

Here, courtesy of C-SPAN (that reliable enough for you)?

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congre...531&id=7242191

You can even watch the video of him saying exactly what my "unreliable conspiracy site" quoted.

Like I said, LAZY.

[TSR]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

I'm sorry. That should have been post #135, not #125, but then you'd have known which post I was referring to if you bothered to actually read this thread. Like I said, LAZY.

.
It's not my responsibility to research your claims for you.
.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Here, courtesy of C-SPAN (that reliable enough for you)?

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congre...531&id=7242191

You can even watch the video of him saying exactly what my "unreliable conspiracy site" quoted.

Like I said, LAZY.

.
Nope, there are several differences between what was said and what was transcribed.

Now, here's a question, granting for the sake of argument that all you claim is true: what happened next?

I mean, you supposedly have this smoking gun -- what has been done with it, and why haven't you made it your business that something did?

What's that? Every investigation into this situation has found that it was suicide?

Then what *was* your point?
.