27-02-2011, 06:29 PM
(This post was last modified: 27-02-2011, 06:50 PM by Albert Doyle.)
Charles Drago Wrote:Don't misread me: My egomania has not progressed to the point at which I believe I can "grade" anyone's efforts with any degree of authority. But once again, FWIW, I see the fatal flaw of over-reach in your application.
It's my opinion that trying to drag too much intellectual sophistry through the maze of evidence has created an unintended effect of under-reaching that comes at the cost of not seeing obvious things for what they are. I think what gives Unspeakable its strength is that it doesn't shy or hesitate when it comes to this impasse.
I believe I may have discovered something there in the fact they came out with Lee's name in order to impress insiders who might be tempted to investigate him as to what his role was. If "Lee" was credited with stopping the Chicago plot government members who were observing him might take the hint and leave him alone and also fall for the same ruse Oswald fell for - that he was a genuine undercover agent working to stop presidential assassins. This would have a tertiary effect of making those same government insiders realize this was an inside job involving covert conspirators, which would have the effect of intimidating those same members into staying quiet for their own good. For only they would know how dangerous that was, being so close to those powers and knowing how they operated first hand.
.