18-10-2015, 05:20 AM
(This post was last modified: 18-10-2015, 05:40 AM by Tom Scully.)
Jim,
Do you allow for the possibility John's interpretation could be admired even more if it was first put through a vetting process before you stenograph it? I would think you both would want to present it in the most encompassing and thorough light, letting the facts speak for themselves? Could the process of putting his research and interpretations on your website be tweaked to improve the presentation? I think it can, but (if what you've recently been adding is an indication) you both seem opposed to the suggestion. I would like nothing morethan to read one of your site's updates under the influence of an impression that if you've attributed it to John, it must be rock solid, take it to the bank. I am not feeling that, yet.
Looks like a nosy photo processor started this ball rolling, but you probably are influenced to post strong opinions weighing less information than I've been sharing for the past four years.
Either the ending in the quote box above is written with incomplete mastery of this material, or it is intended to sensationalize what is on the surface, trivial. "... Reed dropped out of sight without ever seeing his photos ....." What is your message to your site's readers, considering Reed went back to his civilian D.O.D. job in the Canal Zone, considering his daughter had all the photos attributed to Reed and there likely was mail service to and from the Canal Zone? If you leave that up on your site I'll be influenced to examine everything you present there with even more scrutiny[URL="http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57772&search=dyna#relPageId=63&tab=page"].
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docI...3&tab=page[/URL]
[URL="http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16712&p=227419"]
[/URL]
Do you allow for the possibility John's interpretation could be admired even more if it was first put through a vetting process before you stenograph it? I would think you both would want to present it in the most encompassing and thorough light, letting the facts speak for themselves? Could the process of putting his research and interpretations on your website be tweaked to improve the presentation? I think it can, but (if what you've recently been adding is an indication) you both seem opposed to the suggestion. I would like nothing morethan to read one of your site's updates under the influence of an impression that if you've attributed it to John, it must be rock solid, take it to the bank. I am not feeling that, yet.
Jim Hargrove Wrote:.............
Also, I just uploaded to my website Stuart Reed's 11/26 "unrestricted permission" to the FBI to use the photos of the bus, TSBD, and arrest scene he just happened to shoot. What luck! This release was witnessed by Regis Kennedy and another NOLA FBI SA. Reed appears to be well connected! .........
Looks like a nosy photo processor started this ball rolling, but you probably are influenced to post strong opinions weighing less information than I've been sharing for the past four years.
Tom Scully Wrote:..... I'm going to check the Baylor archive donated by John Armstrong, but I'm getting the impression he did no independent research on Stuart L. Reed, as he has Reed dropping out of "sight," the same damning device author Janney featured to turn Crump murder trial witness Mitchell into the CIA "wet work" operator assassin of Mary Meyer.
Quote:http://harveyandlee.net/November/November_22.htm..................
HARVEY, WEARING A LONG-SLEEVED BROWN SHIRT, LEAVES DEALEY PLAZA
.................
......NOTE: Stuart L. Reed took a second photograph of McWatters' bus a few minutes later while the bus was stalled in traffic close to the TSBD. This was very near the time two police officers boarded the bus, looking for HARVEY Oswald. Reed then took a photo of the 6th floor window of the TSBD, and one hour later he took several photos of HARVEY Oswald as he was being escorted from the Texas Theater in handcuffs. Stuart Reed took all of these photos, which sequentially followed Oswald's movements, within 1 1/2 hours. Reed dropped his film off at a photo lab in Dallas, and then hurried to New Orleans to catch a boat to the Canal Zone. Prior to boarding the boat, Reed signed an authorization that allowed the FBI to pick up his developed photo slides in Dallas. The FBI told the WC that a government executive (Reed), answering to the military, took the photos. This seemed to satisfy the WC, and Reed dropped out of sight without ever seeing his photos........
Either the ending in the quote box above is written with incomplete mastery of this material, or it is intended to sensationalize what is on the surface, trivial. "... Reed dropped out of sight without ever seeing his photos ....." What is your message to your site's readers, considering Reed went back to his civilian D.O.D. job in the Canal Zone, considering his daughter had all the photos attributed to Reed and there likely was mail service to and from the Canal Zone? If you leave that up on your site I'll be influenced to examine everything you present there with even more scrutiny[URL="http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57772&search=dyna#relPageId=63&tab=page"].
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docI...3&tab=page[/URL]
[URL="http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16712&p=227419"]
[/URL]
Quote: Guest_Tom Scully_* Posted 03 June 2011
Peter Janney's uncle was Frank Pace, chairman of General Dynamics who enlisted law partners Roswell Gilpatric and Luce's brother-in-law, Maurice "Tex" Moore, in a trade of 16 percent of Gen. Dyn. stock in exchange for Henry Crown and his Material Service Corp. of Chicago, headed by Byfield's Sherman Hotel group's Pat Hoy. The Crown family and partner Conrad Hilton next benefitted from TFX, at the time, the most costly military contract award in the history of the world. Obama was sponsored by the Crowns and Pritzkers. So was Albert Jenner Peter Janney has preferred to write of an imaginary CIA assassination of his surrogate mother, Mary Meyer, but not a word about his Uncle Frank.