My heart is not breaking. I am not sad.

Zooey wrote:

bnw wrote:

Theres a lot more than 10 but that will do for a start. Background in article.

Gulf of Tonkin Incident
Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
Project MKUltra
Operation Northwoods
CIA Drug Trafficking
Operation Mockingbird
COINTELPRO
Operation Snow White
Secret Global Economic Policies
The US Government Illegally Spies on its own citizens

http://theantimedia.org/10-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true/

I don’t recognize all of those, but what the ones that I do recognize have in common is actual evidence.

As opposed to the Absence of Evidence (negative evidence) being used as evidence.

So the Scalia conspiracy used the absence of an autopsy as evidence of foul play whereas what would really be impressive would be actual evidence such as signs of struggle or injury. And the suffocation by pillow allegation is truly silly. It takes an estimated 5 minutes to suffocate someone with a pillow, and there would certainly have been a struggle. It works on infants and people who are completely infirm, and nobody else.

And while the death decree was made remotely, it was after talking to the sheriffs and Scalia’s doctor who said there was no evidence of foul play.

Just in terms of the credibility of evidence, there is evidence stacked on the side of natural causes, and nothing – except the absence of an autopsy – to suggest otherwise. But the absence of evidence is not evidence.

And none of the conspiracies above were proven to be true by using negative evidence.

I was not aware that I ever claimed a conspiracy. Much less a conspiracy with such details as suffocation by pillow? Funny how many ran with it like a scalded trout, slamming anything that might suggest a conspiracy. All I’ve ever written is what was reported and my disbelief that the unexpected death of the highest government official in office since President Kennedy didn’t warrant an autopsy. You can cite negative evidence all you want but without an autopsy there is no credible evidence to substantiate the true cause of death. That is why autopsies are performed.

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

It aint because he’s funded by some rightwing machine.

You do know no one said conspiracy theories are funded directly by an rw machine. In fact saying that would be a conspiracy theory.

But there are resources out there that are supported by private money, yes. They provide access and distribution but there’s no conspirator making up conspiracy theories and putting them in people’s heads.

And the popularity of this one guy doesn’t have anything to do with that either way. There’s always all kindsa guys out there. But in given years, certain kinds of issues take massive precedence…like the energy time and money spent on proving Obama was this or that foreign thing.

Yes, agreed.

w
v

Dunno why this is controversial.

The justice of the peace relied on information from Scalia’s doctor and law enforcement on the scene.

So, unless we accept that Scalia’s doctor AND all of the Texas Law Enforcement were at the very least brought to cow… there can be no conspiracy. The mere act of no autopsy is not direct nor circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy nor indicative of any type of motive.

Basically, there is no “there” there.

bnw wrote:

Zooey wrote:

Why mandate an autopsy when there is no reason to suspect foul play?

There is reason. Because of the office he held and the 180 degree effect upon likely upcoming 5-4 decisions before the court his Obama nominated replacement will cause. That is called motive.

On NPR they were talking about how it actually may not work in the Republicans’ favor to block an appointment. Right now, the court is split 4 – 4 between conservatives and liberals. When the SC is deadlocked, the decision of the lower courts stand and the lower courts are decidedly liberal (by a ratio of 2:1). The panel thought the Republicans would have a better chance with a SC that might lean a little to the liberal side if a new Obama appointed judge were in place than it would with the lower courts.

Zooey wrote:

bnw wrote:

There is reason. Because of the office he held and the 180 degree effect upon likely upcoming 5-4 decisions before the court his Obama nominated replacement will cause. That is called motive.

But it isn’t the sheriff’s job to do all that political calculating, and especially not to worry about the implications to the court decisions.

A guy died. His OWN doctor and the sheriffs on hand said it was natural causes. Totally routine. It’s paperwork from there. Just declare him dead. Ask the family what they want to do. And the family said to take him to a funeral home and get on with it without an autopsy. That’s it.

All this political calculation and second-guessing and invention of assassination is crazy internet political people doing their crazy internet thing.

Sorry.

But the legal authorities don’t make their decisions based on what fringe political citizens in some other state are going to dream up.

And as a fringe political citizen in another state myself, I’ve already told you I would think an autopsy would have been appropriate.

But the absence of that move does not concern me for all the reasons that have already been stated.

His doctor. The local sheriffs. His family. Really. All with 10,000 times more first hand knowledge than you or me. Eye witnesses. They all say the guy died in his sleep. A man of deteriorating health who was nearly 80.

I mean…that’s it.

The sheriff isn’t a coroner. He isn’t qualified to rule on the cause of death. Scalia’s doctor didn’t see the body and only said he had various ailments none of which kept him from working or hunting. There were no eyewitnesses to his death. Death could have been natural. That is what the ignorant rely upon. They hope it is enough by denying an autopsy. Yet with so many nearly undetectable ways in which to induce death to appear to be by natural causes an autopsy of such a powerful government official is warranted. Different toxicological tests performed and tissue samples saved to allow more thorough testing in the future. To make a couple phone calls and have the decision made over the phone is as expected in a banana republic.

Mackeyser wrote:

Dunno why this is controversial.

The justice of the peace relied on information from Scalia’s doctor and law enforcement on the scene.

So, unless we accept that Scalia’s doctor AND all of the Texas Law Enforcement were at the very least brought to cow… there can be no conspiracy. The mere act of no autopsy is not direct nor circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy nor indicative of any type of motive.
Basically, there is no “there” there.

———————
But Mack how would a family doctor and some local cops
know if Scalia had been poisoned or killed KGB-professional-style ?
There is no way nonprofessionals would or could KNOW.
It would take an autopsy to know.

Now, do i suspect foulplay? No.

But am i surprised an autopsy wasn’t required
by law or wanted by the family? Yeah.

And yes you DO know why this is controversial — cause
this country is very divided and has millions of
people who dont trust the system. Like, at all.

w
v

• This reply was modified 8 years, 10 months ago by wv.

zn wrote:

The next question is, how many times has a sitting supreme court justice died in office, and an autopsy was required. The simple answer is none.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s Health Woes Weren’t Publicly Disclosed Before His Death

By MEGHAN KENEALLY
Feb 16, 2016

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/justice-antonin-scalias-health-woes-publicly-disclosed-death/story?id=36975416

Even though the relatives and doctors of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia reportedly knew about his health conditions, the fact that the concerns were kept from the public is in keeping with the practices of the court, experts said.

Unlike the White House, which regularly releases updates on the president’s health, the Supreme Court does not have set guidelines regarding what they do and don’t disclose publicly.

Scalia’s Health History

When the 79-year-old justice was found dead on Saturday in a hotel room at a luxury ranch in Texas, the county’s presiding judge, Cinderella Guevara, was called and pronounced him dead.

Guevara said she spoke to Scalia’s doctor in Washington who told her that Scalia had been sick and had visited his office twice during the week leading up to the trip.

The Associated Press reported that Guevara said the doctor told her that Scalia had a history of high blood pressure, heart trouble and was considered too weak to undergo shoulder surgery following a recent injury.

Guevara told ABC News that the death certificate will say that he died of natural causes with myocardial infarction, better known as a heart attack, being a contributing factor.

Health Factors Weighing In

Dr. Sahil Parikh, an interventional cardiologist at University Hospitals Case Medical Center, never treated Scalia but said that even without knowing his specific family history, there are certain clear factors that may have contributed.

Parikh said that two significant risk factors for heart disease are an individual’s age and gender, with men over 55 years old being the most at-risk group.

“He clearly has some risk factors for heart disease and as those increase in number, so does your risk for having a coronary event,” Parikh told ABC News.

Even though it appears that nothing had been released recently by the Supreme Court about Justice Scalia’s health, there have been other disclosures made about different members of the bench.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is now 82, has had cancer twice and made disclosures in both cases.

Kate Shaw, an ABC News contributor and an assistant professor of law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York, said that Ginsburg has been “very forthcoming” with regards to her health.

Ginsburg released a statement in November 2014 saying that she was going to have a heart stent implanted.

“The procedure went smoothly, and she did not miss a single day of oral arguments,” Shaw said.

Shaw also pointed out that the court released a statement after Chief Justice John Roberts suffered a seizure in 2007.

The disclosures, when they come, typically are made after an official prognosis by a doctor.

“When Chief Justice Rehnquist was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in October 2004, the Supreme Court’s public information office announced the diagnosis, and further announced that he would be undergoing radiation and chemotherapy,” Shaw said.

“He returned to the bench in March of 2005, and when he declined to announce his retirement at the end of that term — Justice O’Connor instead announced her retirement — the assumption was that Chief Justice Rehnquist was in good health and would continue serving,” Shaw said. “But his health rapidly declined in July and August, and he died on Sept. 3, 2005, creating a second vacancy for President Bush to fill.”

According to a report compiled by the Congressional Research Service, 41% of the Supreme Court vacancies that occurred in the first half of the 20th century were a result of a justice dying while in office.

Since then, however, Rehnquist’s death was the only one for a sitting Justice since 1954, the report states.

Zooey wrote:

There isn’t a law requiring autopsies because SC justices’ deaths have never been questioned before. We don’t make laws, typically, in anticipation of something that might happen. We make laws to address issues we already experience.

And Scalia’s death would not be an issue at all if it weren’t for a few circumstances. First, it’s Scalia. Secondly, he didn’t die in the hospital. And, most importantly, the narrative many people in this country are living is one in which democrats – particularly the Clintons and Obama – are basically demons with no scruples. It goes hand-in-hand with the same narrative that has led us to Donald Trump as a serious presidential candidate. The relentless right wing media assaults on these people have created a subculture that EXPECTS democrats to perform illegal and even “evil” deeds. That suspicion has been seeded continuously for the past 30 years.

It’s really no surprise that they would suspect foul play.

Thats all perfectly logical.

And i still think there should have
been an autopsy.

Somehow, i will press on with life,
despite the fact my wishes for
an autopsy were ignored 🙂

w
v

Zooey wrote:

I think Obama is probably plotting to nominate a Muslim judge who wants to rule America with Sharia law.

All that would do is consolidate the already existing conservative bloc on the SC, and give the conservatives a 5-4 majority.

Right?

..

zn wrote:

<strong class=”d4pbbc-bold”><span class=”d4pbbc-font-color” style=”color: #FF0000″>was considered too weak to undergo shoulder surgery following a recent injury</span>.

Too weak to undergo shoulder surgery yet he goes on a hunting trip for quail in which he is shooting a shotgun? A shotgun that doesn’t kick with the recoil? Oops shouldn’t overthink anything for fear of being called a conspiracy theorist!

bnw and wv…

Two Mulders adrift in a sea of Scullys.

nittany ram wrote:

bnw and wv…

Two Mulders adrift in a sea of Scullys.

Sculley is with us on this one. She performs an autopsy on nearly every episode. More like Sculleys adrift in a sea of the cigarette smoking men.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 10 months ago by bnw.
• This reply was modified 8 years, 10 months ago by bnw.
• This reply was modified 8 years, 10 months ago by bnw.

Then the family should have asked for an autopsy to end speculation.