Originally Posted by manifesto
You and others continue advocating for such things a half-century later, which for most people seem to have been settled long ago. Others are listening to your advocacy and then asking you for proper evidence for it. You decline to produce it, and become belligerent and evasive when pressed. I'm not sure you should be pointing fingers at others for incorrigible behavior.
Not by any standard except later morbid interest among a shrinking fringe. Suspicion arising from implications of improper procedure, missteps, and mistakes requires a frame that makes those allegations salient. You manufacture that frame by exalting the import of the autopsy beyond reason. You need the autopsy to be a high-stakes affair for your theory so that everything you dream up about it suddenly has a dramatic gravitas.
Sadly your bare ipse dixit
doesn't grant the autopsy its desired import. You fail to provide an evident perspective for it that goes beyond ignorant handwaving. You fail to consider the effects of special factors in this autopsy. The burden for the premise of import consists not just in arguing that the autopsy should have had a certain significance and been done a certain way, but also in showing that this is the framework the participants actually operated under. Reframing evidence to fit (or in this case, fail to fit) your preconceptions is not good history.