Where is MAURA MURRAY

Snowy White wrote:

Bring your concerns to the media?
Is there are growing presence with the company of others who believe similarly?
Might they be prepared to join you?

It doesn't have to be a group thing. I would just like one to three, truly honest, intelligent persons, at least one of whom is in a position of authority, to candidly assess all the facts from an alternate point of view. But they have to be truly curious and open minded. And have the means to corroborate or dispute what I say. If the theory melts away, so be it. It's ruled out and to me that's good progress. Until that day comes - and I'm not holding my breath - I have little choice but to post parts of my theory as I have the opportunity. Or fold my tent. Which would obviously please a lot of people.

Snowy - this made my day.........

snowy writes:
Are you a right to life advocate?

all it needs is
" did you vote for Bush? "

sorry if offend anyone but that was missing.;-)

Snowy White wrote:

To simplify, Beagle...would you let me/us know if you suspect other companies in MA.
A few? Some? All?
Just curious.

I don't know whether or not this will answer your question, but recently an Athol, MA woman received a bone transplant at UMass in Worcester.(ACT and other bio-medical companies sit cheek by jowl with UMass Medical.)

The bone used in the transplantation was stolen from a cadaver, a dead person. Stolen. Now I doubt the surgeon stole the bone and I doubt his official supplier - a bone wholesaler, say - stole the bone. But SOMEONE stole the bone, and SOMEHOW it got into the operating room. And then into the patient.

Someone near the source of the supply knew the market existed for stolen bones and they simply took advantage of a less than fully regulated market environment.

If Bish or Murray were abducted in order to acquire human tissue or organs, then the main target might have been eggs for ESCR or IVF, or it might have been the HGH in their pituitary glands. Or something else. Or many body parts. Or maybe they knew something that would compromise the trade in body parts or body enhancing drugs, supplements, etc. Using body parts in body enhancing supplements is not a lot different to some people from putting parts of oyster shells into nutritional supplements. It's all about the body image and the money.

Dawn wrote:

Snowy - this made my day.........
snowy writes:
Are you a right to life advocate?
all it needs is
" did you vote for Bush? "
sorry if offend anyone but that was missing.;-)

Or for Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000.

Here's a question I'd like to see answered.

Has Advanced Cell Technology, or any of its sister companies, competitors, or subsidiaries ever employed, now or in the past, an ex-priest convicted of having raped two girls?

I cannot possibly overstate the importance of this question. I don't know the answer, but there's a good reason for asking it.

Anyone, including LE, who is truly dedicated to finding out what happened to Molly Bish, and maybe to Louise Chaput and Maura Murray, would do well to answer this question.

But guess what? Those people just do not exist. They are all talk and no action. LE could easily answer this question, but they won't. Why not?

Dawn wrote:

Snowy - this made my day.........
snowy writes:
Are you a right to life advocate?
all it needs is
" did you vote for Bush? "
sorry if offend anyone but that was missing.;-)

I take it you thought this was funny.

"If Bish or Murray were abducted in order to acquire human tissue or organs, then the main target might have been eggs for ESCR or IVF, or it might have been the HGH in their pituitary glands. Or something else. Or many body parts. Or maybe they knew something that would compromise the trade in body parts or body enhancing drugs, supplements, etc. Using body parts in body enhancing supplements is not a lot different to some people from putting parts of oyster shells into nutritional supplements. It's all about the body image and the money."

********

An extremely powerful paragraph.
However, the reality of any of these possibilities is qualified by your first word:**IF**

In these current and future markets, the suppliers are key.
**IF** strict regulation is unenforced to prevent illegal procurement of tissue/bones/organs, then profit/greed and moral atrocities are inevitable.

I find it hard to believe in principle that an American corporation, at any level, would target certain women for their body parts.
Such a concept would seem more likely and representative of a foreign country and culture.

Just because this barbarism may exist, it doesn't mean that it was the fate of these young women.

Except for their relative geographic proximity in MA, and the UMASS affiliation with UMASS/Worcester, I think the leap to the Bish/Murray connection is unlikely.

Dawn wrote:

Snowy - this made my day.........
snowy writes:
Are you a right to life advocate?
all it needs is
" did you vote for Bush? "
sorry if offend anyone but that was missing.;-)

I was less specific than it might have been, for sure...with the intent to not offend.

My question to Beagle was to generally explore his position about the definition of "life"; which I believe he understood, and answered quite satisfactorily.

Someone inclined to have a broader definition of "life" than narrow might be less inclined to reject biomedical research on principle, or have an ax to grind with the proliferation of this aspect of scientific research.

It was not a judgment for against anyone's personal beliefs.

The definition and interpretation of "life" is may cause some, in principle, to be adverse to scientific To clarify, when some interpret very strictly boundaries of what some interpret very strictly are some who interpret very strictly what others define

!!! jeesh.

i ended where i started composing...strike the last paragraph.

Good time for my daily, self-imposed "shut up".

Snowy White wrote:

"If Bish or Murray were abducted in order to acquire human tissue or organs, then the main target might have been eggs for ESCR or IVF, or it might have been the HGH in their pituitary glands. Or something else. Or many body parts. Or maybe they knew something that would compromise the trade in body parts or body enhancing drugs, supplements, etc. Using body parts in body enhancing supplements is not a lot different to some people from putting parts of oyster shells into nutritional supplements. It's all about the body image and the money."
********
An extremely powerful paragraph.
However, the reality of any of these possibilities is qualified by your first word:**IF**
In these current and future markets, the suppliers are key.
**IF** strict regulation is unenforced to prevent illegal procurement of tissue/bones/organs, then profit/greed and moral atrocities are inevitable.
I find it hard to believe in principle that an American corporation, at any level, would target certain women for their body parts.
Such a concept would seem more likely and representative of a foreign country and culture.
Just because this barbarism may exist, it doesn't mean that it was the fate of these young women.
Except for their relative geographic proximity in MA, and the UMASS affiliation with UMASS/Worcester, I think the leap to the Bish/Murray connection is unlikely.

Sorry, you're kind of missing the point. I'm NOT saying an American corporation ordered the abduction of anyone. I'm saying some free lance at the bottom of the supply chain may have taken upon himself to make a big buck.

If it was ever learned that stolen human eggs were used in the creation of human embryos, then the political fallout would be unprecedented.

The bio-med research company itself may not have known where the eggs truly came from - they may have been lied to - but if they later learned that the eggs came from a murdered female, I don't think the CEO or the company's major investors would be too crazy about releasing that information to the public, either.

In fact, American corporations target women for their body parts every day. Just ask the going rate for eggs at any IVF clinic. The company itself may not kill or kidnap its donors, but that doesn't mean a loose cannon wouldn't try it.

Snowy White wrote:

<quoted text>
I was less specific than it might have been, for sure...with the intent to not offend.
My question to Beagle was to generally explore his position about the definition of "life"; which I believe he understood, and answered quite satisfactorily.
Someone inclined to have a broader definition of "life" than narrow might be less inclined to reject biomedical research on principle, or have an ax to grind with the proliferation of this aspect of scientific research.
It was not a judgment for against anyone's personal beliefs.
The definition and interpretation of "life" is may cause some, in principle, to be adverse to scientific To clarify, when some interpret very strictly boundaries of what some interpret very strictly are some who interpret very strictly what others define

thanks. Heard ya. No, I have no ax to grind.

OH my.......... I just got back from a meeting. I have not laughed this hard for a long time. What is in the coffee today? this is the wrong forum but you have to admit that was hilarious.. Scientist - not even a Scientologist..

snowy your a saint..:-)

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, you're kind of missing the point. I'm NOT saying an American corporation ordered the abduction of anyone. I'm saying some free lance at the bottom of the supply chain may have taken upon himself to make a big buck.
If it was ever learned that stolen human eggs were used in the creation of human embryos, then the political fallout would be unprecedented.
The bio-med research company itself may not have known where the eggs truly came from - they may have been lied to - but if they later learned that the eggs came from a murdered female, I don't think the CEO or the company's major investors would be too crazy about releasing that information to the public, either.
In fact, American corporations target women for their body parts every day. Just ask the going rate for eggs at any IVF clinic. The company itself may not kill or kidnap its donors, but that doesn't mean a loose cannon wouldn't try it.

I'd gathered, from everything you've previously written about this subject, that you have held some v. specific knowledge about a certain company (often named)...and suspected Bish/Murray to be victims.
But now we're backtracking...and generalizing.
Either way...it's OK, because I do understand any and all of the possibilities you've mentioned.

Dawn wrote:

OH my.......... I just got back from a meeting. I have not laughed this hard for a long time. What is in the coffee today? this is the wrong forum but you have to admit that was hilarious.. Scientist - not even a Scientologist..
snowy your a saint..:-)

Dawn, I don't know if you're laughing at me or with me...but it's OK...'cuz lobotomy line (and tissue bank) forms to the left of the rope-a-dope.

It all started at DD this morning when I entered from the wrong side and the clerk waited on the person that came from behind and beat me at rope-a-dope.

I also said I didn't like Michelle O's dress(es) and took a beating for that a few days ago...LOL...so call me Ann Coulter's fraternal twin, but make no mistake...I'm a GOOD biotch!

Yeah, it's all off-topic.

Yes - gvmeabrk - I do think its funny and why I added that I did NOT want to offend anyone.

Alden writes these thought out - well written posts and its obvious alot of time and thought has gone into these.

However, he does add some funny things - and saying the right to life - and then reading his post adding roman catholic - sceintology etc.. I did find funny - and it reminded me of you know who.. Then follows up with the debacle in Florida in 2000 .. it was very amusing to me. I know - sick sense of humor but I did laugh

Laughing with you!!

Reminder - 17 days....................... do what you can..

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>You don't need "an idea" in order to answer the question.
You said that you hesitate to cast a wider net, so I thought a simple question like this would be helpful.
If you don't want to answer, could you at least please say why? Thank you.

No, I said I hesitate to cast a net as wide as you have. There are multiple reasons for that.
I also have little reason to trust any of the information you've put out there. It's called "considering the source." It may also be referred to as "they boy who cried wolf" or any number of other things.
The truth of the matter is you have had any number of completely off-the-wall theories, and the only thing any of them have had in common is that they all indicate some sort of vast conspiracy, whether it involves art theft, theft of body parts or tissue, steroids, water plants, etc. They're all indicative, shall we say, of a certain personality type with which I prefer not to engage on an intellectual basis for a number of reasons.

BUT, all other things being equal,

If I were a law enforcement professional, and I had GOOD reason, including but perhaps not limited to the above? Yes, I might well investigate this person. But that's conjecture, because (a) I'm not a law enforcement professional, and (b) I don't have a good reason. I'm not sure that the reasons you've listed are good enough--for the reasons listed above which hopefully will be clear to you.

That work for ya?

Short version: I find numerous flaws in the flow of your logic, enough so to question the veracity of much that comes bearing one of your names.