You complained about how the moderator treated your theories in chivvying people to end the hijack of the thread. Given the moderator’s post was an attempt to end the hijack, what difference does it make whether or not he was “neutral” about your ideas while ending the hijack? Each of the following statements is equally acceptable in ending the hijack: “Stop talking about his true theories”, “Stop talking about his theories”, “Stop talking about his untrue theories.”
Note that in the process of dismissing the validity of the theories, the moderator said nothing about his impressions of you as a person (he didn’t “flame” you), nor did he cast aspersions on the theories (he didn’t call them “nutty” or “stupid”; he simply called them untrue). Nothing in our rules requires “neutrality” on the part of the moderators regarding the content of what people are saying here. If the moderator had demonstrated animosity towards you specifically while acting upon the hijack, you MIGHT have something to complain about.
I can’t get into this right now because of adult stuff (unlike here).
However, what this comes down to is Prosequi’s claim that there were too many variables is disproven by the borderline lethal dose of barbiturates found in Jimi’s blood at the autopsy. What this shows is that an extreme dose, which is at the outlier range of those variables, constitutes a determinative narrow band of possibilities that can be used to make legal forensic conclusions. My research showed that the manufacturers product information indicated that 9 Vesparax tablets was a bordeline lethal dose - which was corroborated by the 3.9mg% of blood barbiturate level found at the autopsy. Once you input this proven dose it then conforms to a very narrow range of forensic possibilities at the extreme outlier range. So while Prosequi claims there are too many variables, in actuality such a dose would necessarily induce a period of unconsciousness before death. There is no variable that would allow consciousness under this dose. This proves that Jimi had to be passed-out when the wine was introduced. And since an unconscious person cannot introduce wine into themselves that proves Jimi was murdered as told.
This is solid forensic evidence that can't be answered by mockery. But honest people would see that the mockery is evidence of their inability to answer it.
There is an important reason why our court system consists of both a prosecutor and a defense lawyer. Any set of claims can seem reasonable when presented as an unargued whole. But if each aspect of each claim is examined, taken apart for flaws, reinterpreted, and paired against differing evidence, the bottom line of belief may skew around 180 degrees.
Science works the same way, though the process is sufficiently different that many don’t see it. A paper that makes a claim is the equivalent of a prosecutor’s case. But all the rest of the scientific world can chime in with arguments against the whole or any tiny piece. In science the defense and the jury overlap and any one can object and judge.
Claimants know that to come out a winner they can’t just present their side and stop, or even keep presenting their side over and over. People who do that are considered charlatans. Every opposing point has to be addressed and convincingly refuted or shown to be irrelevant.
And the same is true for message boards. People here will both attack your claims and judge them. If you don’t like that, then you’re not looking at it correctly. A good scientist wants the world to try to tear the claim apart. It will be stronger the more attacks it weathers. It’s your job to overcome the attacks with better facts, explanations, and refutations. If all you’re getting is mockery then you haven’t done your job well.
This is not the place to re-argue the case. I would normally say you could open another thread on the matter in the correct forum, but given your attitude here I can’t see that you would be likely to do a better job of presenting your argument or dealing with criticism.
Jetblast, if you have questions about how this site is moderated, you can ask those. If you keep insulting other posters you’ll start receiving additional warnings, and if you try to start another Hendrix argument I will close this thread.
