OK. So show us someone who was deliberately drowned during a waterboarding?
As others have said, the whole point of waterboarding is to take steps to simulate the terror of drowning without any actual risk of drowning.
And you will note that the mechanics of waterboarding require an environment quite distinct from an urban residence.
You need total control over the prisoner to get them strapped down, etc. You need to have him prepared elsewhere with handcuffs and other controlling devices to which the patient has been acclimatised so that you can do this, or else getting control and strapping him down in the torture room will be a huge fight (leaving injuries). You need time. You need no fear of the prisoner yelling or screaming out, waking the neighbours. You need the necessary apparatus (a large, sturdy board that maintains the prisoner in a horizontal position with the feet nevertheless higher than the head.) In other words, you need a prison environment or the equivalent.
It’s possible to drown someone by throwing them overboard at sea, too. It does you no good to demonstrate that someone has been murdered in that way, because while it is a drowning, it bears no resemblance to what you say happened in Danneman’s flat. Similarly, a waterboarding bears no resemblance to what you say happened in Danneman’s flat, for the reasons I have mentioned.
Your capacity for ex post facto “reasoning” is truly remarkable. Just try to imagine a group of spies watching Hendrix. How do they know when he is coming home? If he is coming home? Then they plant sleeping tablets on the off chance that he will take them? Do they just sit around for days until he takes them? How do they know if he takes them?
On your theory it is critical to the plan that he take them. What do they do? Put them on his table with a big flashing arrow saying “Take these”? How can they have any idea he will take them at all? How many could they possibly expect him to take?
This is why your coming up with ad hoc theories after the event to pseudo-explain things is nonsense. From a before the event perspective, it would be a truly hopeless plan to have a critical step depend on the off-chance that Hendrix would see the pills and take them just when you needed him to, in the quantities you needed him to. You might as well leave Leonard Cohen records lying around in the hope that he’d listen to them and slash his wrists.
No. When you can use “logic” to justify any element of the entire universe of possibility, then you are not using logic. This is just a WIFOM.
If there were evidence of another barbiturate/alcohol drowning, you would claim that supports you (because that would “logically” demonstrate that this was a common intel method of murder).
Since there is not evidence of any other barbiturate/alcohol drowning, you seem to think that supports you too (because it “logically” demonstrates that the intel people were too cunning to repeat themselves).
No.
This is what is meant by an “unfalsifiable hypothesis”, since any version of history is used to confirm the hypothesis. You were the one who said drownings were a common method of murder by Intel people, so I challenged you to find one like this. There wasn’t one. So you inverted your position into its exact opposite - the absence of similar murders is what makes it look like an Intel murder.
As marley said, this is the exact opposite of logic.
Correct, there are no variations on this that include drowning. If it’s a drowning, it is not waterboarding. This would be like me saying a man who was killed while seated “was given the electric chair.”
Oh please. Just have the integrity to admit you don’t know what waterboarding is. You clearly don’t know. You’ve already showed complete misunderstandings of anatomy, medical science, and the meaning of the word forensic. Why not just accept the correction and move on?
It is not findable because it does not happen. You’re using the absence of evidence as proof, which is not only bad logic, it’s hilarious, as Noel Prosequi explained.
Maybe she was mad he didn’t like the tuna sandwich.
As I said earlier, this would be a ludicrous coincidence. If the whole plot only works because of a coincidence, you can’t pass it off as a brilliant intelligence operation.
Bannister, your source, has never mentioned any bruising or signs of a struggle on the body. These would have to exist if he was killed. I am attempting to consider this logically rather than assuming ‘there is no reliable evidence he was killed, therefore he must have been killed and the evidence was covered up!’
There’s no sensible evidence.
Yes, intelligence people are very clever. That’s why they would plant sleeping pills in an apartment, wait around until their target happened to take nine of them, and then rush into his apartment and kill him by pouring bottles of wine down his throat. It’s very subtle!
People are smart enough to see persons who won't admit the obvious under any circumstances trying to force the argument into some very unclever specious contrivances. What is most obvious here is that your entries and methods of argument wouldn't survive the very arguments you make against such methods and arguments. You are very obviously being forced into some very weak and transparent strawmen. Observers can see we are well-past what you are trying to mire the debate in.
Barbiturate overdose suggested to be suicide was documented in the case of Jack Ruby interviewer Dorothy Kilgallen. She told friends she was going to come out with new revelations about the Kennedy Assassination after interviewing Jack Ruby in his jail cell. She was the only journalist to be given an unsupervised interview with Ruby. She then had a handsome CIA agent court her and ended up dead in her apartment from barbiturates. Researchers traced her last doings to a New York City bar bartended by a NYC cop where her CIA friend took her. The cop later opened an expensive high class restaurant and bar in upstate New York with funds that no one could trace the source of. She was slipped a mickey at that bar. So barbiturate-induced death was a classic CIA method.
What you wrote above doesn't change or disprove this. All you need to know is waterboarding is a strictly isolatable intel method and it was used against Hendrix. I think we've successfully reduced the opponents to chasing their tails in circles right in front of a very neatly produced case of evidence for Hendrix's murder. It's a nice hoop and poodle sideshow but I myself find it annoyingly distracting compared to the real evidence it is being used to divert us from.
So you’ve proved there are no “smart people” here, but you have not begun to prove Hendrix was murdered.
Again, you have no cites.
While in prison, Ruby claimed the government was giving him cancer. I think that tells you all you need to know about that.
But it wasn’t! You said he was drowned! Waterboarding is not the same thing as drowning in the same way a simulated execution (also a torture tactic) is not a real execution. You don’t know what waterboarding is, and I have no idea why you introduced the word to this discussion at this late stage.
Those are specious questions trying to force us away from the obvious. I feel you are backpeddling here against the obvious and also sound like your are -indirectly- admitting Hendrix was drowned. The burden is actually on you here and you haven't lived up to it. The strictly intel method of waterboarding was used against Hendrix. They just used the next phase of this military method and drowned him. You asked for an example, you got a conclusive example in reply. And I don't think you've adequately responded.
There's no prosecutor on earth who, if he was prosecuting this, would not recognize and use this evidence. Jeffery was MI5 and bragged of killing and torturing during his MI5 service. Waterboarding was something taught to MI5 agents. Hendrix was waterboarded. I personally think we are being misdirected here to a poodle and hoop sideshow of specious, forced strawmen in order to distract us from the obvious. And if I turned the tables and asked you to show anyone who was drowned this way by persons who weren't intelligence agents I think you would come up even shorter than you already have.
Hendrix was on the FBI Security Index. That's a pretty serious government radar screen to be on. Once he crossed over to England he passed into CIA jurisdiction. It would not be a crazy idea to suggest his call to the New York doctor where he discussed his insomnia might have been wiretapped. If so then his intention to take sleeping pills would have been known in advance. The set-up and Dannemann's anxiousness to get Hendrix back to her flat where super-strong German barbiturates awaited should not need to be explained. There's not a prosecutor in the world that would hesitate to shy from realizing this or pointing it out. If he didn't he should be disbarred or, how do they say it, "struck off".
The suggestion that this couldn't be induced is very weak. Especially if you have a female insider relating all this to Jeffery. And, as it turns out, right perfectly dovetailing with intel tactics of hiring infiltrators for intelligence. A hired Mata Hari arranging all this doesn't hurt. Especially one who ends up dead from fumes in her Mercedes when all this finally reaches the court venue it should have long before. Of course, all this shatteringly-obvious evidence, however, is very casually something no prosecutor would ever venture simply because he would be hung-up on trying to answer how this *proves* it was like waterboarding(???). Forget the fact Jeffery was documented as hiring other close female Hendrix associates to spy on him like Devon Wilson. I must say, though, I do appreciate your arguments that completely ignore all this right in its face. But then again very weak denials do tend to have the effect of strengthening my material.
I don't think you've nearly answered my points.
So, out of curiosity, what would convince you that Jimi Hendrix wasn’t murdered? I suspect even if there were a full reopening of the case, with a full inquest into his death, and a verdict of “accidental death” were returned, you would still assume a cover-up of some sort.
You’ve asserted he was killed this way. It cannot possibly be specious to ask for examples of similar killings.
He’s not the one proposing a fairly straightforward death caused by drugs and alcohol was actually an assassination by a conspiracy of intelligence agencies, angry girlfriends and Mafiosi.
Nobody disputes that intelligence agencies have waterboarded people. The question is why you can’t tell the difference between drowning and waterboarding.
You’re now inventing stuff on the fly. There is no such “next phase,” and this military method is a method of interrogation, not murder. This is not how waterboarding works. If you drown the person, you haven’t waterboarded them. Further, the point of waterboarding is that the interrogators scare the shit out of their victim without physically harming him. Why do that and then drown the victim?
Wouldn’t it just be simpler to admit you and your source do not know what waterboarding is?
The onus, or center of gravity, has shifted here. We are well into what I wrote being the central, bearing reality here rather than any frivolous points in denial of it. The gravity of all the factors involved cannot be escaped by the weak offhand points you are making in reaction to them. Really, at this point we are really talking about how all the things I wrote could be denied at this stage.
In other words, you’re declaring yourself the winner of the argument becuase you find yourself so convincing. Thus the burden is now conveniently on us.
Suit yourself, pal. The rest of us are denying all the things you’ve written because most of them are ridiculous and the rest are completely insane.
Come on, he did exactly the same thing in the TWA 800 thread. You weren’t expecting anything different here, were you?
It’s an interesting phenomenon, becoming so completely absorbed by a clearly nonsensical conspiracy theory that you lose sight of reality and logic. It would make an interesting psychological study if you could just get the test subjects to trust you enough, but I think it would just play into their fears.
I didn’t participate in that thread. But yes, I knew what we were getting here. I just wanted to point out the arguing stage is over, and now and it’s time for Jetblast to try to move those goalposts all the way across the field.
That is what everyone here has been talking about since day one of this thread. The things you have written are complete and utter bullshit, dude. It’s not a question of how they can be denied, but will we hurt ourselves trying not to laugh?
