Post by IncubusI used to post here maybe about 10 or 11 years ago (I think) when I had
the time.
I still think about the evidence from time to time, and whenever
something to do with the case comes on TV, I'll watch it. If they say
something that I know to be incorrect (from having read the
transcripts), I get pissed off, but get over it eventually.
It's been years since I visited this site, but what do I find when I
happened to drop in a few days
ago? Ragnar lamenting the passing of the group and hallucinating with
delusional fantasies that
Prien and Miller were unable to recognize the truth and how you NoJ's
had whacked us over the
head with it countless times.
Well, whatever "truths" about the Simpson case you fantasized having
whacked us with added up
to nothing more than empty air balls you threw around so freely that
would have driven Diogenes
to despair about ever being able to encounter anyone who told the
truth until he was struck by the
thunderbolt of truths that we hurled at you that totally, completely
and fully annihilated the
credibility, accuracy and truthfulness of and exposed all the frauds
deceptions, misrepresentation
and lies that made up the prosecution and plaintiff cases against
Simpson.
Let us not, however, dwell in generalities and go instead to the
facts.
First Ragnar dares to belittle my conclusions about 911 that I voiced
by declaring that she would
not like "to think the world is being deprived of his talk about
Reichstag fires and how steel
maintains 100% of its strength right up to the melting point." Only a
NoJ could pack as many
falsehoods as she has into such a short sentence. First, I never
claimed, maintained or alleged,
and I dare you to prove otherwise, that steel maintains 100% if its
strength up to its melting point.
What I instead did say was that the fires that burned in the two
towers, and especially the puny
little flames observed in WTC 7 that was not hit by any airplane, were
never hot enough to have
heated the steel frame to the point that the frame could have been
weakened sufficiently to
produce the collapse of the buildings straight down into their
footprints. That this scenario for
explaining the fall of the buildings was beyond absurd was
demonstrated a few years ago when a
steel frame building in Madrid turned into a flame belching torch with
the fires raging out of
control for over 24 hours, but the building remained standing even
though portions of some floors
collapsed. These collapsed floors did not pancake the building to the
ground. Not only that, if
you care to check this out, there are now thousands of structural
engineers and architects and
other professionals on 911 Truth sites who utterly denounce the Bush
administration's version of
those events. Naturally enough, you NoJs continue to believe in the
government lies, just like
those of the Simpson case.
Next, my comparing 911 to the Reichstag fire merely pointed to how the
two events were
identical false flag operations implemented by authorities who used
the terror they inspired to seek
domination over their people and use it to justify aggression against
any who they identified as
their enemies. In Hitler's case, they blamed the commies, threw their
opposition in the Reichstag
into concentration camps and then conferred dictatorial powers on
Hitler. Almost exactly what
happened in the US - with the Patriot Act, the concentration camp in
Cuba, and wars of
aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq and who knows who else is to
come. I am, therefore
proud to be one of the first if not actually the first person to
identify the truth of what was going
down. But had you been following the polls on this, up to 40% of the
American people now
subscribe to the notion that 911 was an inside job - meaning it was
either directly perpetrated by
the Bush administration or permitted by them to happen. In other
words, it was the Reichstag
fire. There are now even buttons proclaiming it.
And no less a person than Alan Sobrosky, the former Director of
Studies of the US Army War
College, declares that based on his discussion with high ranking
Pentagon officials, it is 100% certain that 911 was a Mossad
operation, that was, no doubt, facilitated by neo-cons and the
Administration, and covered up by them by suppressing any meaningful
investigation of what happened.
So damn, Prien was right again, as ALWAYS, and I take full credit for
seeing this long before anyone else did. But I do that all the time.
You NOJs just keep on believing the lies.
Finally, you allege that you established that I quoted Baden out
context when in "an old thread where Prien was trying to claim Baden
admitted that Nicole should have
aspirated blood." But then you also gave up posting anything to show
it since it was so long ago.
It's not, however, too long ago for me to set the record straight and
expose your lies again.
First, it's rather impossible for me to have quoted Baden out of
context to claim Baden said Nicole should have aspirated blood when I
have, indeed, reviewed the relevant thread and it is clear I said that
he instead cleverly dodged around the issue of whether she should have
aspirated blood while the conditions he described for when aspiration
would occur fitted Nicole's injuries. Second, I also pointed out that
after he was asked about whether any reputable medical examiner would
agree to a reasonable degree of medical certainty with Dr. L's
conclusion about why Nicole had failed to aspirate blood when Dr. L
had indicated that one would expect aspiration with her injuries,
Baden dodged the question, affirmed that he disagreed with the
conclusion and stated the conditions under which aspiration would
occur, without ever affirming whether Nicole's injuries fulfilled
these conditions so that she should have aspirated blood if they had.
Ity is because he dodged around this issue , as I explained it, that I
never said Baden claimed she should have aspirated blood, and pointed
to the opposite. Third, he in fact then also said that Nicole had
failed to aspirate blood while Goldman had done so, which was a bald
faced lie because Goldman never aspirated any blood. The blood in his
lungs came directly from the knife injuries into the lungs rather than
blood that blood entering from his mouth or through his respiratory
tract. Finally, what I did in that thread and after was to point to
how Baden was deceiving with half truths about the medical conditions
and the aspiration issue.
So now I also dare you to prove exactly in what way I quoted Baden out
of context with respect to any portion of his testimony on this issue
and my assessment of his claims. I'll even make it easy for you and
post the testimony I cited and my comments bearing directly on that
testimony (meaning I am snipping all the follow up comments that go
beyond this issue):
Baden on aspirating blood into lungs
Prien <***@aol.com>
A final postscript to clear up matters about the significance of the
absence of
blood in the trachea and lungs of Nicole Brown.
All the yahoo's attempted to have a good time at what they thought was
my
expense by denouncing my qualifications and interpretations. At the
head of
the class was Bozo Regan and his claque of buffoons.
Then I ran across the portion of Baden's testimony that related
directly to the
medical points at issue and my interpretation of the significance of
the
absence of blood in the lungs. There is a two-fold significance to
his
testimony. First, it makes absolutely clear and unquestionable the
significance of the medical findings about the incised throat wound.
Second,
it illustrates the massive deceptions that were practiced by all sides
in this
case.
The testimony in question is during Baden's direct examination on
August 10,
1995.
First, when asked about the throat injury, Baden agrees:
WITH DR. LAKSHMANAN'S INTERPRETATION THAT THAT MOST LIKELY WAS THE
FINAL
INJURY SHE RECEIVED AND SHE WOULD HAVE LOST CONSCIOUSNESS WITHIN
SECONDS OF
SUFFERING THAT CUT WOUND BECAUSE OF THE MARKED DECREASE IN BLOOD FLOW
TO THE
BRAIN. THE BRAIN WOULD HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OF OXYGEN AND SHE WOULD HAVE
LOST
CONSCIOUSNESS.
But when a few questions later, he is asked about Dr. L.
interpretation of how
her throat was cut, the following exchanges and testimony ensues (all
emphasis
in testimony is added) :
Q YOU HEARD DR. LAKSHMANAN SPECULATE THAT --
(Objections by Kelberg and court rulings regarding the use of the
word
"speculate" have been cut.)
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: -- THAT ONE WAY THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON COULD
HAVE BEEN KILLED WAS THAT THE PERPETRATOR HAD A SHOE ON HER BACK,
PULLED HER HAIR UP, HYPEREXTENDED HER NECK AND SLIT HER THROAT, AND
THE EVIDENCE OF THIS WAS THAT THERE WAS NO BLOOD IN HER LUNGS.
MR. KELBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. THAT MISSTATES DR. LAKSHMANAN'S
TESTIMONY. I ASK TO BE HEARD AT SIDEBAR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU HEAR DR. LAKSHMANAN'S TESTIMONY
REGARDING NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON BEING ON THE GROUND UNCONSCIOUS, HAVING
HER HAIR PULLED BACK, HER NECK HYPEREXTENDED AND HER THROAT SLIT?
DID YOU HEAR THAT TESTIMONY?
A YES.
Q DID HE OFFER AN EXPLANATION FOR THAT?
A WELL, HE DESCRIBED IT AND SUPPORTED IT (that her neck was
hyperextended) BY THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO SUCKING OF BLOOD INTO THE
LUNGS, ASPIRATING BLOOD (emphasis added - note that the prosecution's
testimony therefore totally confirms my interpretation of the autopsy
description of the
condition of those organs).
Q IN YOUR OPINION, IS THERE ANY WAY A RESPONSIBLE MEDICAL
EXAMINER COULD OFFER THAT OPINION WITH A REASONABLE DEGREE OF MEDICAL
CERTAINTY?
A I THINK DR. LAKSHMANAN IS RESPONSIBLE IN GENERAL TERMS, BUT I
THINK THAT -- I DISAGREE WITH THAT OPINION. I THINK IT'S A WRONG
OPINION (note that Baden merely disagrees with the coroner's nonsense
and fails to respond to the question directly, which is essentially
whether that opinion has any
credible medical foundation.)
Q AND WHY DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT?
A UMM, WHETHER OR NOT A VICTIM SUCKS BLOOD INTO HIS OR HER LUNGS
-- IN THIS INSTANCE, MISS SIMPSON DIDN'T AND MR. GOLDMAN DID (note- no
evidence for this, Goldman only had blood in his lungs from the lung
injuries themselves) -- DEPENDS ON A STAB WOUND GOING THROUGH THE
WINDPIPE -- OPENING UP THE WINDPIPE OR THE MOUTH AREA SO THAT BLOOD
CAN GET IN AND THEN THE PERSON LIVING LONG ENOUGH TO INHALE IT. (There
you have it - whether blood is aspirated into the lungs depends on
whether the windpipe is cut (which it was in Nicole's case) and
whether the person lived long enough to aspirate the blood that gets
into the windpipe -- which Nicole obviously did not.)
INHALATION OF BLOOD INTO THE LUNGS IS ASPIRATION. AND THAT COULD
HAPPEN WITH THE NECK FLEXED OR WITH THE CHIN AGAINST -- ALMOST AGAINST
THE CHEST.
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HYPEREXTENSION OF THE NECK. IT HAS TO
DO WITH WHETHER THERE'S BLEEDING INTO THE AIRWAY, AIR PASSAGE AREA,
AND WHETHER THE PERSON LIVES LONG ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO INHALE THE
BLOOD AND NOTHING TO DO WITH HYPEREXTENSION. (I just made the same
point above and which is what I said
in my postings to begin with.)
(Shapiro's immediately following question shows he is either stupid
or
deliberately refusing to establish the truth about this case.
Q WE HAVE NOW GONE THROUGH A SERIES OF QUESTIONS ON A GENERAL
CATEGORY OF DISCUSSION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IN YOUR OPINION NICOLE
BROWN SIMPSON STRUGGLED WITH THE PERPETRATOR OR PERPETRATORS OF THIS
CRIME.
The critical follow up question to Baden's statement of the
conditions under
which blood would have been aspirated into the lungs would obviously
have been
whether those conditions had been satisfied with the injuries that
Nicole sustained. It is, of course, a certainty that the air passages
were cut that would have opened the airway to the entry of blood. It
is also clear that no blood in fact entered the air passage or was
aspirated into the lungs. The critical unasked question that is left
is whether blood necessarily would have gotten into the air passages
with the injury Nicole sustained if the injury had been sustained
while she was still alive and breathing.
The hint to what this answer necessarily must have been is in the
question
Shapiro posed that Baden declined to answer directly, namely: IS THERE
ANY WAY
A RESPONSIBLE MEDICAL EXAMINER COULD OFFER THAT OPINION WITH A
REASONABLE DEGREE OF MEDICAL CERTAINTY? The directly responsive answer
would have been, no there is not, because the coroner's explanation is
pure nonsense, which is why Baden declined to answer it directly and
denounce the coroner's integrity in the bargain. So he sidestepped the
issue.
Now to recapitulate and reiterate the point I first made about the
significance
of these injuries (now backed by medical testimony of the physiology
involved).
It is a physiological certainty that if Nicole's windpipe (trachea)
had been
cut while she was still alive (her lungs and heart were working),
blood would
have gotten into it and had to have been aspirated into her lungs. As
Dr.
Baden specifically testified, that depends entirely on "WHETHER THE
PERSON
LIVES LONG ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO INHALE THE BLOOD." To note again:
whether blood is aspirated into the lungs depends solely on whether
(1) the windpipe
was cut (which it unquestionably was); (2) there is bleeding into it
(not directly answered but had to be if she was alive); and (3) if she
was alive long enough thereafter to inhale it (the absence of any
blood in the lungs that must have been there had she been alive when
throat was cut definitely answers this questions).
Baden's testimony therefore substantiates the following set of causal
statements: If the windpipe of a living person is cut, blood will flow
into the opening caused by the injury, and the breathing of a living
person through the hole cut in the windpipe (and nose/mouth) will
cause the blood to be inhaled (aspirated) into the lungs. If, on the
other hand, a person's windpipe were cut and there is no blood in it
nor was any aspirated into the lungs, the person could not have lived
long enough thereafter to have inhaled it. Ergo: The person with a cut
throat who has no aspirated blood in her lungs could
neither have lived long enough after the injury to have inhaled the
blood, nor
could she therefore have bled to death from the injury which would
have
required her to be alive for some (albeit short) period after the
injury
occurred.
(End of citation).
So Prien is right again on all counts, proving again the delusional
folly of your claiming otherwise.