Jack White Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 Charles...you are on the right track. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 Tom, Bernice, Christopher & all forum members interested:I just want to post a few thoughts regarding this entire issue and then I wont waste more of anyone's time since my thinking may be out of line with that of the forum in general. There are several issues which I think are important to mention. 1) For many years I have believed and stated vociferously that I think that money and power and its acquisition were The Force behind both the Coup and the cover up. I believe this as much or more than I believe anything regarding this case. 2) However I believe the actual motivation and source of the "real" money and power was not in New Orleans. This is not to say that there are NO connections. 3) I feel that the pursuit of similar tangental issues such as this is what has kept this investigation bogged down for these past 42 years. 4) I do not believe that LHO was involved except in the periphery of the plot and was at the very most "A" shooter and even then not a killer. 5) I believe that most of the actual "participants" (not neccessarily the planners) considered themselves to be true patriots. 6) I believe the path that Tom is following may be interesting to some people, but does not lead to the solution of this case. I therefore consider it chatter. There are many other things that I am at issue with but the point which I intended has probably been made. Tom also states such things as how Oswald "skirted the net of having been fully recognized and thoroughly investigated by the FBI and others". How did Oz "skirt" an intelligence net? He defected to Russia. He went to the US Embassy in Moscow and advertised that he wanted to relinquish his U.S. citizenship. He stated at the embassy that he intended to share with the USSR military secrets which he posessed that included the Top Secret U2 project. When later he was ready to return to the U.S. with his Russian wife, he was able to do so with a U.S, govt. loan. It is stated by the U.S. intelligence agencies after all of the above had occurred, that he was not even debriefed. I cannot imagine following anyone's line of reasoning who states that he believes that Oswald "skirted" U.S. Intel. These are the reasons that I "skirt" the line of reasoning set forth by Tom. Tho consequences and possible coincidences when aligned with some actual facts and occurrances, may be interesting to some, I do not feel that they in any way make a case that is worthy of my consideration. Thanks for your patience. Charlie Black <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi Charles: Though I agree in general with your post...and you and others may not agree and some do not....for instance.... In relation to the two ,Harvey and Lee, the research into his family, and childhood of which there is relatively little known...that does not somehow conflict...and in many occurances, does not "gel" as it should..also in the two Marguerites area of research, some information in what Tom has been posting may help some to uncover new information..and some are working on this area... ... Whether you agree or disagree with a members personal beliefs in all, or whether he or she has an agenda as some call it....I have learned one thing, and that is to "never shoot the messenger"..on occasion, a lead is given or picked up, that could possibley produce results.....and that is what we should be after....you take their research and do you own within ...it may provide a lead.....nothing has been written in stone in this case, as too much has been dissasembled, I shall call it....for too many years...we know the old we must persevere with anything that is possibley new....IMO... Just some thoughts.... Thanks...B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 Tom, the information you are providing is helping to build a picture of the conditions, mindsets etc. relevant to a world that existed half a century ago, certainly one that I'm unfamiliar with. As such in helping to get a feel for this case I find it most helpful and I hope you'll continue to post as per prior the diversions. Obviously I have my own ideas but as others have pointed out one can read and take as one wishes from a range of information on this forum.There is certainly room for your style as well. (I even find those who seek to control, and stifle flows of information interesting as well.) You're doing well. JohnD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted July 23, 2005 Author Share Posted July 23, 2005 Tom, the information you are providing is helping to build a picture of the conditions, mindsets etc. relevant to a world that existed half a century ago, certainly one that I'm unfamiliar with. As such in helping to get a feel for this case I find it most helpful and I hope you'll continue to post as per prior the diversions. Obviously I have my own ideas but as others have pointed out one can read and take as one wishes from a range of information on this forum.There is certainly room for your style as well. (I even find those who seek to control, and stifle flows of information interesting as well.) You're doing well. JohnD <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Any hypothesis which has excluded considerable pertinent facts, is on an unstable foundation, at minimum. As humans, we are creatures of nature; nurture; and environment. Most agree that environment plays the larger role. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now