Re: How do you believe Jimi died?
In my very simplistic understanding of the "waterboarding"-theory, if it is possible to understand it at all, it seems that the theory is not so much based on "evidence" as on a whole series of deductions, inferences, premises etc in order to prove it. It may therefore seem clear if one can wholeheartedly "believe" all these reasonings but without any evidence, it is not possible to convince anybody of the "waterboarding"-theory.
What I understand thus far would look like something as the following:
1) Bannister claims Hendrix was drowned in wine
2) Tappy Wright claims there was a hit squad who waterboarded Hendrix
10) Hendrix was murdered by his manager Jeffery for the insurance money
11) Jefferey worked for the CIA/MI5
12) Danneman was a plant by Jefferey/CIA/MI5
13) conclusion: Hendrix was killed by the CIA/MI5 and some others.
Between steps 2 and 10 is a series of assumptions (pills, wine, MD, autopsy report etc, mostly all the stuff nobody knows for certain) that are "interpreted" in a certain way (the deductive reasoning mentioned above) that would make it sound "logical" that steps 10 to 13 are also valid inferences.
Well, as anyone can see, there are some big problems in this line of thinking. Not only are many of the premises unfounded (eg the first one on Bannister), many of the reasoning takes place in some very foggy part of the brain. If evidence accompanying each step could be given, the whole theory would of course be more sound but at this point I can only see a bunch of unfounded and unconnected claims and events.
"Specially when your only friend talks, looks, sees and feels like you, and you do the same just like him." Jimi Hendrix - My Friend