I understand your being so visibly unable to answer the rest of what I wrote and why.
The beauty of this is people can see the psychological denial mechanisms being used here to avoid answering the points.
People can see you pretending that what you offered above is adequate to not repsonding to the rest of what I wrote.
In other words, you just can't answer. The harder you blow against that the stronger you make my case. Your pretense of superior argument, in light of this, is almost comical.No. People do not see this. Only you see this. Stop pretending to know what other people take away from your arguments. All the evidence in this thread shows nobody but you see this. Not a single person. Not only that, it’s a very weak rhetorical technique and, frankly, insulting and counterproductive to insinuate that you know what “honest people” and “intelligent people” and “anyone” thinks. You’re basically saying to your audience, “you’re all dishonest idiots if you don’t believe me, because, of course, everybody but you can see this.” Why don’t you have a look around and really see what intelligent, honest, and most people really do think. Hint: it’s not anything what you wrote.
You're not answering the points.
That's all you need to know.
You're not answering the points because you *can't* answer the points.
Fool yourself as to why any self-exposing way you wish. It only strengthens my arguments. You are struggling with your conscience and not what I wrote whether you realize it or not.Enough already. I tolerated your arguments no matter how ridiculous they got, but you’ve made more than your share of personal assumptions about other posters and their motives and innermost thoughts. If you post any more of these you’ll receive a formal warning and I’ll shut this thread down.
Only in your head does this appear to be true.
Um, no. Believe me, my conscience isn’t struggling and I’m not losing any sleep over Hendrix’s death. If I had any doubts about the cause of his death at the beginning of this thread, I don’t any more. Do you realize how asinine your statement sounds? I can just as easily say “Jetblast, you are struggling with cognitive dissonance, and deep down in your heart you know your theory is complete hogwash, but you just can’t let go since it lets you feel somehow superior to others because only you can see some hidden truth nobody else can, whether you realize it or not.” What kind of rhetorical technique is this?
Anyhow, I don’t even see what your point is any more. I thought it was to try and convince us that Jimi Hendrix was murdered, but it’s devolved to an incoherent screed, with no apparent attempt at bringing people over to your point of view.
Ha! That’ll just prove that you’re in on the conspiracy.
Hey, don’t forget that I have been cast under a pall of suspicion regarding the actual Hendrix murder, according to Jetblast.
Alright, this gets settled right now.
I did it. I sneaked out of my house in the dead of night while my parents slept, flew to Heathrow (where it was even deader night), caught a cab to Hendrix’s apartment, woke Monika and told her to go out for some smokes, convinced Hendrix to down a handful of Vesperax, and subsequently poured several bottles of Boone’s Farm strawberry wine (which I had concealed on my person) into him. I then shinnied down a drainpipe, avoiding Eric Burdon (who was knocking on the door), wrote a cryptic message in the dew and made good my escape.
I don’t know why I did it…it just seemed like a good idea at the time.
I won’t do it again.
I’m the Hendrix Killer!
I buried Paul!
I cannot account for my whereabouts on the night of his death. I would ask my father about it, but since it was 1970, he probably wouldn’t know either.
I must have missed you while I was busy organising the Mafia and MI5 to send thugs around to help. That Jeffrey bloke was bloody useless at that sort of thing. I hope they turned up.
Oh no, another pop celebrity death overshadowed by foul intrigue!
Gordon Lightfoot is dead, then undead.
I swear I haven’t been in Canada recently.
From what I see I don’t think there are many people with serious interest in this, but in case there are I suggest reading this chapter by Astucia. He provides some critically relevant background information on Hendrix’s death.
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/Chapter12.htm
.
Astucia quoting Bannister:
We can assume the "18 inch metal sucker" is a device with a predictable flow rate Bannister or others could relate to us. It is silly to argue over the flow capacity of the suction device since it can be fairly reasonably rendered as can Bannister's estimation.
Perhaps Astucia makes a mistake here by alleging someone else caused the barbiturate intoxication. It could be that Hendrix took the pills himself as we see from his conversation with his doctor in New York about needing sleep. Was Hendrix told these extra-strong Vesparax were "Tuinols" as he related to his New York doctor?
The doctor indicates a clear separation of windpipe-obstructing vomit from lung-filling wine. If Hendrix had died from mixing pills and wine he drank himself both the blood alcohol level would have been higher and the stomach contents would have digested and mixed with the wine. The wine is too separated to be normally-ingested wine. Plus we have more than reasonably isolated too much wine to be accounted for by the claimed manner of death. The clear, separated wine is exactly what you would see if Hendrix was drowned in wine. That is exactly why Doctor Bannister is saying what he is saying, because he noticed the signs of drowning in wine and not the signs of choking on vomit.
Responding to this by saying "Bannister was struck-off for fraud" is not a valid answer. No one has shown why being struck-off for book-keeping is reason to dismiss Doctor Bannister's professional medical judgment.
No doubt from the ambulance attendants that Hendrix was long deceased. I think we can assume this version, that is backed by every other witness, rather than Dannemann's, is the correct version.
It's important to note our witnesses saw large piles of vomit on Hendrix. A forensic determination should be incurred here to see what kind of barbiturate paralysis of the gag reflex occurred from a 3.9 percent of blood level. In other words, if the gag reflex was inhibited to the extent it was would it be able to produce the witnessed vomit event? This is a forensic determination that would show that the vomit seen was more likely the result of a strong body reaction to death. Since the wine had been forensically witnessed as being deeper into the body, and therefore first, we have validly established the clear forensic pathology of drowning in wine. The vomit then followed as a bodily reaction to death. This is further reinforced by the loose wine seen on the bed and around Hendrix. No doubt we are seeing what is plain and obvious. Hendrix was forcefully drowned in wine while passed-out on Vesparax sleeping tablets.
Although claimed to the contrary, if you go back and read this thread every single poster who tried to offer an alternative explanation was refuted. Most did not return to offer a follow-through. I believe we have more than reasonably shown evidence for murder despite the attacks against it.So a chick who was partying with Hendrix the night he died in a drunken stupor isn’t a good witness and his entourage removed drugs from the scene before authorities arrived. Color me surprised that someone taking drugs and drinking heavily dies from asphyxiation.
If you’ve ever had a bout of reflux while sleeping (sober) you’d know just how deadly this would be if someone vomits during an intoxicated state of sleep. I can tell you from personal experience that you have to be able to wake up while bile first starts traveling up the esophagus to stop an incredibly nasty transfer of stomach fluids into the lungs. Reflux is something that happens without the violent muscle contraction involved in vomiting and in itself is a deadly event with babies. If someone is the least bit sedated it is a death sentence to vomit while sleeping.
A book where the author “solves” John Lennon’s murder by watching Rosemary’s Baby? :dubious:
First off, Jetblast, Astucia is a fucking lunatic. He seems to think the Anti-Defamation League was involved in the death of Michael Jackson. I was going to say he’s also a raving anti-Semite, but then I read the part where he quite reasonably says “I am not a huge fan Hitler’s.” The fact that you’re using this guy as a cite really says everything that needs to be said about your theory. Even if we ignore all that, he is mostly repeating the same Bannister quotes you’ve been using all thread while making up a bunch of connections between Hendrix’s death and other events.
And you’ve been asked this before, but why did Bannister and other waste “half an hour” on Hendrix when they could see he’d been dead for hours? I see three explanations for that: stupidity, incompetence, and boredom. Maybe nobody else was brought to the emergency room that night? Othrwise someone might have said “Hey, stop sucking wine out of that dead guy and try to save some of our living patients!”
Dear God…he’s ba-ack.
O.K., now we’ve got the nearly 30-year-old remembrances of a couple of ambulance attendants, one of whom “just knows” when someone is dead the instant he enters the room (there’s training for you), both of whom don’t recall oodles of wine splashed all over the death scene, but instead Biblical quantities of vomit.
We’re supposed to believe the Hendrix-urp isn’t important because the wine was “deeper” in the body, whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean, according to Bannister the Master Resuscitator Of The Dead with his Magical 18-Inch Tube.
There are things the body may do as a “reaction to death” (which I’ll omit mentioning to prevent this thread from getting any more nauseating than it already is) but tossing your cookies is not one of them. If this were true, we’d have to reshoot tons of movies. What would it do to murder mystery films if we had to watch the victims barfing all over the place? Or war movies? You don’t want to think about it.
Newsflash, Dr. Bannister - the only way that could have occurred is if Hendrix was still alive :eek: or, more likely, if you and the Keystone Medical Staff were suctioning out fluid from his stomach all along.
I appreciate the latest additions to the incredibly sinister-MI5-mob-thug-insurance-scam-message-in-the-dew-fabricating-hysterical-wine-soaked-groupie-girlfriend-Eric Burdon-at-dawn-Third Reich-18-inch tube/metal sucker-fountains-o’-wine-gushing-from-the-windpipe-literary roadie-barbiturate-polluting-crazy Wadhams-noble gas fart-exploding-extreme body reaction-evacuation process-3.9-mg-percent-tons-o’ dense-vomit-undeniable forensic theory.
But all you get from having a variety of silly people recite it, is mass silliness.
You're not paying attention. The wine was witnessed by the attendants. I'll find the quote - they're scattered around. But you're foolish to question it in the first place since there were many witnesses who saw the wine. But more importantly you should realize there couldn't be any wine saturating Hendrix's hair, clothes, and the towel wrapped around his neck unless there was. It's kind of foolish not to realize this and make an argument so contrary to the known facts.
The first statements were closer to 1990, or 20 years after. However, if you were paying attention, separately-taken accounts from many witnesses all said the same thing. Your points are meaningless.
What kills your specious attempt above is the fact Dannemann admitted to Sharon Lawrence that she tried to wash 'sick' off Hendrix's face with wine. The reason she did that was because other people noticed the wine and brought it to Lawrence's attention. But I'll take Bannister's corroboration myself since it's real and matches everything else known about the scene.
I thought it was more than clear. The wine couldn't be in the pure state Bannister witnessed unless it was only in the body for a short period. Any other alternative would involve either a registration of the wine in the blood alcohol content or the mixing of the wine with the stomach contents.
I guess you need this explained to you slowly. The wine can't be pure and be behind the vomit. It had to come out first, not last. The rice meal was well before any wine would have been drunk at the flat.
It's all explained fairly clearly. I don't see why you're having trouble understanding it? The wine in the stomach and lungs conforms to the wine being used to drown Hendrix and the vomit emerging as Hendrix drowned. If Hendrix was killed this way this is exactly what you would see. Vomit ejected forcefully while large amounts of wine flooded the lungs and stomach. This is exactly what Bannister came forward to tell. The reason he did so was because he understood what he had witnessed as a doctor.
You destroy your own credibility. It has been stated that vomiting is a common occurrence in drowning victims. You should be more careful with your gratuitous naysaying. It can blow-up on you sometimes. You simply don't know what you're talking about.
If this is what Marley called numerous members showing how ridiculous what you wrote is I think he should reconsider. If anything it shows how irrefutable the obvious evidence is.Yep, there are lots of things you were going to find, like the autopsy report. We’ll add this to the list.
What you said was:
And that’s bull. The body’s sphincters may well relax at the moment of death. It would be, shall we say, bizarre for a corpse to heave. Urping requires coordinated and prolonged muscle contraction, not muscle relaxation.
I realize you’re trying to avoid any implication that the official cause of death was accurate (choking on vomit). But instead you’ve provided supporting evidence for that event.
Oops.