Quote from Haroki:
So anyways, yeah, your doc is real. But honestly, what does it prove? All it does is raise questions. And that's ok too, but you need to find your own answers that make sense, and then present them. And present them with a little respect, and people may listen to you. Not all, for sure, but a few will. And they'll tell a few more, and so on.
....
That's how you win respect and get others to listen to you.....
I agree with that, good advice. Ratboy would make a better case if he chose his wording better.
Now, about the docs. They show that, even when at the time someone would be crucified for daring to suggest government involvement in Cuban issues, in reality that same government was planning actions
far worse then what already was considered farfetched and loony.
So, what is so different now? Why is it so hard to even
consider involvement of a party we should be able to trust and believe, but has been proven not to desreve that trust many times in the past. It is nothing new, it happened before. Is the thought still too scary?
I agree wholeheartedly that is seems unbelievable and farfetched, and I will keep thinking that for a while. But that does not prevent me from looking at the evidence with an open mind. The official storyline has as many wholes in it as the conspiracy ones. And there were
a lot of suspect circumstances, before and after the crime was committed. And, as governments go, the story they tell the public is almost
never the real one. Would this time be different? Is there anyone here naieve enough to think they heard the real thing?
So,
Motive, Means & Opportunity is what the evidence must clarify. I only miss the actual Motive, but I often miss that when trying to make sense of government activity; it may be something we'll never understand.
Ursa..