Must you be a Bishop prior to the ɛƖɛctıon of Pope or does the Papacy automatically confer Episcopality ( is that a word??) as the Bishop of Rome?

No, a man need not be a bishop to be elected, and being elected does not confer orders. If the pope-elect is not a bishop, he must be ordained a bishop to become bishop of Rome (and therefore Pope).

Whether Siri might have been elected or not is something that really cannot be proved either way. It's possible he may have been elected, but even if you want to believe that (despite, as I said, lack of real proof), there is another problem in that Siri never claimed the papacy. After the ɛƖɛctıon he went back home and went on with his life until his death. In Canon Law, someone who fails to assume an office he is appointed to, within a reasonable amount of time, is considered to have resigned that office. This is simply common sense, since an office in the Church is something a person must exercise, it's not like a coupon you can stick in your pocket and never use and still be able to pull it out and use it at some indefinite period in the future.
.
This is reflected in Canon 188, which says that someone is considered to have resigned an office automatically under certain conditions. Incidentally, this is the same law that states that a person who publicly defects from the Catholic Faith is considered to have automatically resigned any office he holds in the Church, even without a legal declaration to that effect being necessary.
.
But there is another section in that law that says that a person is considered to have resigned his office if he: "2º Intra tempus utile iure statutum vel, deficiente iure, ab Ordinario determinatum, de officio provisus illud adire neglexerit." My translation is basically: "If he fails to enter into that office within the proper time established by law for that office, or, if there is no law, determined by the ordinary."
.
It's hard to see how this doesn't apply to Siri, in that he never even claimed to be pope, and by his actions only continued to exercise the office of cardinal and archbishop of Genoa.

There is way more to the Siri Story then the appearance of not assuming office. A resignation is void if it was done under duress. Remember that white smoke cannot happen unless someone had accepted the nomination. 

What can be proved is that the Magisterium cannot teach error, fallible or infallible. To say so otherwise would be heresy.

Here's the question. If Cardinal Siri was the valid Pope until his death in 1989, and any other conclave would naturally be invalid ( a fraud) between and including 1958 until his death, could the ɛƖɛctıon of Benedict XVl be valid since he would be the first Pope 'elected" since the death of Siri?
I know Benedict is a Vll modernist and has subverted the Fatima message, so this is not a question about his agenda, just a question about his possible validity. To my understanding, the only thing that would invalidate him is that the modern college of Cardinals are no longer filled with true Bishops due to the Vll consecrations and their votes are (probably?) invalid- not sure.
Also I know that Ratzinger's episcopal consecration is questionable as it was done in the new rite, but his priestly ordination was ok. Must you be a Bishop prior to the ɛƖɛctıon of Pope or does the Papacy automatically confer Episcopality ( is that a word??) as the Bishop of Rome?
If it is possible that Ratzinger was validly elected that would put me in the category of being a Benevacanist which makes me a bit uncomfortable to say the least.

I think that a lot of this is unclear.  If these popes were illegitimate through 1989, then I would imagine that by the time that Benedict XVI had been elected, very few of the Cardinals were still around from the Pius XII days (36 years later ... in 2005 when the next post-Siri election happened ... and with most Cardinals being on the older side when they're appointed).  So it could be that the Cardinals were no longer legitimate by 1989.  Alternatively, Benedict XVI could have been legitimately elected, depending on whether you think that an illegitimate pope could appoint Cardinals by some principle like "color of title", but then if his episcopal consecration was invalid, then he couldn't assume the teaching office aspect of the papacy (since only bishops are part of the teaching Church), but perhaps his juridical things like appointments would be valid.  It's not 100% clear but highly disputed, since the Church has never definitively ruled on the various theories.

There are tons of dots pointing to the fact that this is exactly what happened, that the Jєωs/Masons/Communists/Illuminati planted one of their own into the papacy.

No, a man need not be a bishop to be elected, and being elected does not confer orders. If the pope-elect is not a bishop, he must be ordained a bishop to become bishop of Rome (and therefore Pope).

Right.  This is actually one of the principles cited by the sedeprivationists, a distinction between a pope-elect and a pope.  If a priest were elected, he could IMO exercise some of the duties of the Papacy that require only the clerical state (such as making appointments) but could not teach.  If a layman were elected, then IMO he couldn't even legitimately make appointments.  But this is just an opinion.  Certainly, however, a priest who's elected could not exercise the TEACHING office of the papacy, since only bishops are part of the Ecclesia Docens, until he were consecrated.  I believe that Canonists hold that if a non-bishop were elected and then refused consecration to the episcopacy, they would thereby tacitly resign the office as well, demonstrating the intention to not really accept the papacy.

Lad, what is your doubt? You claim to be a "sededoubtist" but you always like to argue that the normal SSPX/SSPX Resistance stance is heretical (except for Father Chazal who you claim to be a sedeprivationist even though he denies it). Doesn't that make you just a normal sedeprivationist? As if the other option is heresy there can't be a doubt. Or is your doubt possibly sedeprivationist possibly going back to the Novus Ordo? Even if the Siri theory is true, it is irrelevant now as he had no successor, unless you posit a secret one like Hobson claims.

Lad, what is your doubt? You claim to be a "sededoubtist" but you always like to argue that the normal SSPX/SSPX Resistance stance is heretical (except for Father Chazal who you claim to be a sedeprivationist even though he denies it). Doesn't that make you just a normal sedeprivationist? As if the other option is heresy there can't be a doubt. Or is your doubt possibly sedeprivationist possibly going back to the Novus Ordo?

I'm a dogmatic indefectibilist.  I'm DOGMATICALLY certain that the Church, being guided by the Holy Spirit, cannot produce such a degree of destruction as would require good Catholics to leave the Church in order to remain Catholic.  I don't agree with the IMO often-exaggerated notion of infallibility held by the dogmatic sedevacantists, but I also believe that this situation completely crosses a line.  We're not talking about an isolated dubious statement.  We're talking about a brand new religion that lacks the marks of the Holy Catholic Church.  That is not possible.  Imagine if there had been no New Mass, no bogus canonizations, etc., and the only purported error in V2 was that of Religious Liberty.  Would there have been a Traditional movement?  No, in that event, good Catholics who questioned that particular teaching would simply have respectfully raised their objections to the Holy See through the appropriate channels.

Now, HOW one wants to think out the problem that this poses for the papacy, that's a detail that has been disputed, whether one wants to go with the Bellarmine position or Cajetan / John of St. Thomas position ... which Father Chazal holds, there's freedom there.  Heck, it doesn't matter to me if you want to speculate that Montini was blackmailed due to his sơdơmite lifestyle or else even that he was drugged, imprisoned, or replaced by a double.  I don't even really care if someone wants to claim that all the V2 teachings and the NOM are somehow reconcilable with Tradition.  I think it's preposterous, but at least it tacitly upholds the principle that the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline cannot defect.

Archbishop Lefebvre followed this EXACT same line of reasoning in that audio clip that has been posted here.  I'll try to find it.  He admits that this degree of destruction is not possible given the protection of the Holy Spirit over the papacy.  Then he starts speculating about how this could have happened, whether Paul VI was drugged, which he didn't think was likely, or whether the See was vacant, and he did maintain that this was possible.  But in the end he felt that he didn't have the authority to go there (very similar to what +Vigano has articulated) and "preferred to wait" for resolution of that question.

I'm sedeprivationist only in the sense that I believe the distinction to be quite valid, and that it works better than pure sedevacantism for a lot of reasons I won't go into here.  But whether or not we are in a sedeprivationist situation is a determination made by our private judgment, and we cannot have the requisite certainty to dogmatically know this.

I believe that the dogmatic sedevacantists confuse dogmatic indefectibilism with a dogmatic assertion regarding the status of the papacy, and I feel that there's a logical gap there that they don't see.

If Siri was in fact legitimate pope, then the See wasn't vacant during that time.
There are a number of prophecies that refer to an "eclipse" of the Church, which refers to the fact that the true Church is hidden behind something else.

he could IMO exercise some of the duties of the Papacy that require only the clerical state (such as making appointments) but could not teach.

Yes, that's reasonable. I think in the old days when a priest was bishop-elect, he might exercise some powers as administrator but could only be fully installed in the diocese after becoming a bishop.