Former CIA Director and *Strategic Investment* Editor

[jim bell]

At 06:03 PM 4/30/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:

>> Notice that I said "comparatively" non-suspicious.  Can you think of any 
>> LESS suspicious way to appear to die and still explain no body being found?
>
>Many.  You lack imagination.

You lack specifics.  And how applicable are these to a person like Colby?


>> He might very well be alive.  But it's almost certain he won't be found...
>
>Your conspiracy nut side is showing.

Who said "conspiracy"?  If Colby wanted to disappear, are you trying to 
suggest that he wouldn't have been able to engineer this himself?  The word 
"conspiracy" requires the actions of more than one person, or have you 
forgotten?  If anything, your misuse of the word "conspiracy" reveals your 
knee-jerk thought processes.


>> Not days and days too long, 
>> just a few hours?  Or were Colby's habits so precise and predictable (and 
>> known to be so!) that his neighbor would call the cops just because he, 
>> ONCE, stayed a little longer than normal?
>
>Yes, they were.  He ran an active consulting business in D.C. and returned
>to the city on a regular schedule.  In addition, he was very prudent about
>letting people know when he was about to go out on the river.  The man was
>in his 70s, of course he generated a good deal of concern amongst his
>neighbors.

If the guy went out, alone, in a canoe in (reportedly) 2-foot waves without 
a life vest, the term "intelligence" is doubly wasted on him.


>> What's wrong with this picture?
>
>It's not hard to see.  As usual you are theorizing and speculating about
>issues and persons you have no connection to.  Even in the face of someone
>with personal experience as to the matter at hand you persist in asserting
>that you are more 'in the know.'

What a brainless statement!  Quite the opposite, I didn't claim to be "in 
the know."  Rather, I merely pointed out that what was being said by others 
about the incident was without appreciable support and rather inconsistent 
and not believeable, and very much inadequate.  I can do this very 
effectively without knowing, for certain, what really did happen.


>In this particular case you are discussing someone I know personally.
>
>Given the circumstances, your rumor mongering is both classless and
>distasteful.

I'm starting no rumors.  Rather, if anything, I'm ATTACKING a rumor being 
portrayed as fact:  The rumor that he died in a canoeing accident.

Jim Bell
jimbell at pacifier.com