Michael, and Ms. Krotsch, thank you. It would take a thread to explain the clash of thinking "dictating" the approach counter to mine. I'll try to present a brief outline with one "prime" example. I'm sure you've noticed how Lance has been posting lately. His frustration is similar to mine. I had a favorable opinion of him until he voiced his strong objection to the right of women to control what goes on in their own bodies.
I am convinced most prefer not to be informed of new, verifiable research details. In fact, exposure to it is resented, often angrily.
Background: Jean Davison and a poster named Brian with a brief, strong presence triggered my interest in November, 2015. The result was all of this research, in chronological order.
My research definitely hit a nerve.:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160419175050/http://jfk.education/node/11
Sorry Brian, Jean, and DVP, Banks Did Not Key-Punch 1963 P.O. Money Orders
Submitted by Admin on Tue, 11/10/2015 - 06:47
Updated November 19, 2015:....
Two pages of supporting research of discoveries outline above.:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160419152939/http://jfk.education/node/12
https://web.archive.org/web/20160419180202/http://jfk.education/node/13
I have never directly communicated with Lance but together, we inadvertently went to a "don't go there," territory that collided with "finished product".
Michael, even reading it four years later, it still seems so divorced from the way I think and the approach I take. It seems
a concrete overcoat with an anchor chain wrapped around any researcher's neck, for good measure.
MWT Graves had suggested Jim let up on Lance, in an Ed Forum post.
I had stumbled into and presented an evidence heavy, reasonable explanation of all Klein's postal money order Armstrong "outliers" and Lance had found the purpose for the numbers string (138....etc.) inked onto the front of the $21.45 money order.:
A "third" way is unappreciated and unwelcome.
is simkin still penn jones in the 2020s are LNs still out on their 3-martini lunch?
