Harvey and Lee

[Thomas Graves]

I'm inclined to agree with Martin Blank in that I feel the theory makes sense out of chaos, and I have no problem believing that Angleton could be so clever. The most difficult part for me is believing that Lee was born in Russia, and Harvey in the US, and that having such different physical descriptions growing up they somehow ended up close in size and weight and looking so much alike. Is plastic surgery the explanation for this?

Paul,

Maybe I'm mistaken, but wasn't "Lee" supposed to have been born in Hungary?

(Of course back then all Hungarians had to learn Russian, an Indo-European language quite different from their non-Indo-European Hungarian....)

--Tommy

No Tommy, that was Harvey.

Thanks Dawn.

But I've got to ask you something: Why the heck is it so gosh darn important for JFK assassination researchers and / or bloggers to get their stupid facts straight, anyway? Sheez!

(Just kidding.)

--Tommy

Message for Martin Blank: It was "Lee" "Harvey" who was from Russia Hungary.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Martin Blank]

I'm inclined to agree with Martin Blank in that I feel the theory makes sense out of chaos, and I have no problem believing that Angleton could be so clever. The most difficult part for me is believing that Lee was born in Russia, and Harvey in the US, and that having such different physical descriptions growing up they somehow ended up close in size and weight and looking so much alike. Is plastic surgery the explanation for this?

Paul,

Maybe I'm mistaken, but wasn't "Lee" supposed to have been born in Hungary?

(Of course back then all Hungarians had to learn Russian, an Indo-European language quite different from their non-Indo-European Hungarian....)

--Tommy

No Tommy, that was Harvey.

Thanks Dawn.

But I've got to ask you something: Why the heck is it so gosh darn important for JFK assassination researchers and / or bloggers to get their stupid facts straight, anyway? Sheez!

(Just kidding.)

--Tommy

Message for Martin Blank: It was "Lee" "Harvey" who was from Russia Hungary.

then who was marina talking about?

[Thomas Graves]

I'm inclined to agree with Martin Blank in that I feel the theory makes sense out of chaos, and I have no problem believing that Angleton could be so clever. The most difficult part for me is believing that Lee was born in Russia, and Harvey in the US, and that having such different physical descriptions growing up they somehow ended up close in size and weight and looking so much alike. Is plastic surgery the explanation for this?

Paul,

Maybe I'm mistaken, but wasn't "Lee" supposed to have been born in Hungary?

(Of course back then all Hungarians had to learn Russian, an Indo-European language quite different from their non-Indo-European Hungarian....)

--Tommy

No Tommy, that was Harvey.

Thanks Dawn.

But I've got to ask you something: Why the heck is it so gosh darn important for JFK assassination researchers and / or bloggers to get their stupid facts straight, anyway? Sheez!

(Just kidding.)

--Tommy

Message for Martin Blank: It was "Lee" "Harvey" who was from Russia Hungary.

then who was marina talking about?

Beats the heck out of me, Martin.

Maybe she was confusing Harvey... I mean Lee... I mean Harvey... with Robert Webster again.

Uhh, could he speak Russian?

Hmmm... How about his double? LOL

--Tommy

Edited March 5, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Bernie Laverick]

I'm inclined to agree with Martin Blank in that I feel the theory makes sense out of chaos, and I have no problem believing that Angleton could be so clever. The most difficult part for me is believing that Lee was born in Russia, and Harvey in the US, and that having such different physical descriptions growing up they somehow ended up close in size and weight and looking so much alike. Is plastic surgery the explanation for this?

Good point Paul and one which I have many times asked. You won't get an answer because the very idea is too ludicrous to even imagine so they'll just ignore that inconvenient anomaly. It seems it was just pure luck that they happened to grow up looking as near as damn it identical. But when you say that there will be a flurry of posts saying that they DON'T neccessarily look alike at all. (Both Dawn and David have argued that point with me before)

Take a look at post 7 by David...they look pretty identical to me.

So can someone in the H/L cult please explain this? Did the originators of this dastardly plot KNOW that H/L were going to emerge from adolescence looking identical? If so...how?

Could it have worked if Lee had grown into a 24 stone dwarf? Would it have worked if Harvey had shot up like a basketball player in his late teens or developed a skin disease (such things happen all the time). Where would that have left this 'clever' plan by Angleton? Did they just cross their fingers and hope that these two 13 year olds from different families and different countries would conveniently grow up to resemble each other

Was it important that the 'impersonator' looked like the person he was impersonating? I mean, whoever heard of an impersonator who looks nothing like the person he is impersonating? So all these paper chasing anomolies count for nothing other than slopping more mud into the water. Until you can explain how they knew that these two pre-adolescents were going to grow into one entity so alike that they could be interchangeable Armstrong's theory just comes a cross as yet another kooky explanation along the lines of "Jackie did it!" or "Greer did it" or "Elvis did it"...

I don't expect any honest answers; the proponents of this theory are even more dishonestly evangelical than the SBT mongers, only ten times more damaging. No wonder Mr Mainstream writes us all off as freaks and 'head-the-balls'!

I despair.

You know, I'd have more respect if Armstrong's supporters would at least be honest about this Everest sized obstacle to the whole sorry theory and say..."Yes, I agree that is problematical". But they won't.

Please don't implore me to read the whole book David. You've had years now to tease out the most compelling parts; none of you have sold it. Why would I want to wade through a huge tome when its proponents refuse to answer simple questions about the gaping holes?

It's a religion...and not a very good one at that!

[Martin Blank]

I'm inclined to agree with Martin Blank in that I feel the theory makes sense out of chaos, and I have no problem believing that Angleton could be so clever. The most difficult part for me is believing that Lee was born in Russia, and Harvey in the US, and that having such different physical descriptions growing up they somehow ended up close in size and weight and looking so much alike. Is plastic surgery the explanation for this?

Good point Paul and one which I have many times asked. You won't get an answer because the very idea is too ludicrous to even imagine so they'll just ignore that inconvenient anomaly. It seems it was just pure luck that they happened to grow up looking as near as damn it identical. But when you say that there will be a flurry of posts saying that they DON'T neccessarily look alike at all. (Both Dawn and David have argued that point with me before)

Take a look at post 7 by David...they look pretty identical to me.

So can someone in the H/L cult please explain this? Did the originators of this dastardly plot KNOW that H/L were going to emerge from adolescence looking identical? If so...how?

Could it have worked if Lee had grown into a 24 stone dwarf? Would it have worked if Harvey had shot up like a basketball player in his late teens or developed a skin disease (such things happen all the time). Where would that have left this 'clever' plan by Angleton? Did they just cross their fingers and hope that these two 13 year olds from different families and different countries would conveniently grow up to resemble each other

Was it important that the 'impersonator' looked like the person he was impersonating? I mean, whoever heard of an impersonator who looks nothing like the person he is impersonating? So all these paper chasing anomolies count for nothing other than slopping more mud into the water. Until you can explain how they knew that these two pre-adolescents were going to grow into one entity so alike that they could be interchangeable Armstrong's theory just comes a cross as yet another kooky explanation along the lines of "Jackie did it!" or "Greer did it" or "Elvis did it"...

I don't expect any honest answers; the proponents of this theory are even more dishonestly evangelical than the SBT mongers, only ten times more damaging. No wonder Mr Mainstream writes us all off as freaks and 'head-the-balls'!

I despair.

You know, I'd have more respect if Armstrong's supporters would at least be honest about this Everest sized obstacle to the whole sorry theory and say..."Yes, I agree that is problematical". But they won't.

Please don't implore me to read the whole book David. You've had years now to tease out the most compelling parts; none of you have sold it. Why would I want to wade through a huge tome when its proponents refuse to answer simple questions about the gaping holes?

It's a religion...and not a very good one at that!

so as i asked earlier what is your explanation

[David Josephs]

I'm inclined to agree with Martin Blank in that I feel the theory makes sense out of chaos, and I have no problem believing that Angleton could be so clever. The most difficult part for me is believing that Lee was born in Russia, and Harvey in the US, and that having such different physical descriptions growing up they somehow ended up close in size and weight and looking so much alike. Is plastic surgery the explanation for this?

Paul,

Maybe I'm mistaken, but wasn't "Lee" supposed to have been born in Hungary?

(Of course back then all Hungarians had to learn Russian, an Indo-European language quite different from their non-Indo-European Hungarian....)

--Tommy

No Tommy, that was Harvey.

Thanks Dawn.

But I've got to ask you something: Why the heck is it so gosh darn important for JFK assassination researchers and / or bloggers to get their stupid facts straight, anyway? Sheez!

(Just kidding.)

--Tommy

Message for Martin Blank: It was "Lee" "Harvey" who was from Russia Hungary.

Not entirely accurate...

There was info from a woman who claims to have known HARVEY's Father and Uncle in NYC who she claims were from Hungary...

There is no info on where the boy that becomes HARVEY was born...

you know.. for accuracy sake.

From my timeline spreadsheet:

1947 1 27 Mrs Jack Tippit (Westport, CT) tells FBI that HARVEY's father and uncle from Hungary live in NYC Yorkville, NYC 77th & 2nd Ave

[Thomas Graves]

[...] ["Harvey" and "Lee"} somehow ended up close in size and weight and looking so much alike. Is plastic surgery the explanation for this?

[...]

Take a look at post 7 by David... ["Harvey" and "Lee"] look pretty identical to me.

So can someone in the H/L cult please explain this? Did the originators of this dastardly plot KNOW that H/L were going to emerge from adolescence looking identical? If so...how?

[...]

Bernie,

Gosh, I never thought of that.

How did they get "Harvey" and "Lee" to look so much alike, anyway?

Hmmm...

I GOT IT! I GOT IT!!! I GOT IT!!!

It was, It was ... Operation Paperclip! ... and, and, .... Oh My God! ... Yes! ... Selective Breeding and GENETIC ENGINEERING!!!

What? Operation Paperclip wasn't around that early???

Darn.

--Tommy

PS Warning to Bernie: Don't criticize DJ too much or accuse the believers of the "Harvey and Lee" thing of being in a kind of "cult," because if you do, DJ will get really, really defensive and obnoxious and will say, in so many words, that your opinions are just "stuff that you pull out of your posterior", that it's you that doesn't have any manners, and then he will try to silence you (and other "heretics" like you) by insinuating that we are trying to close this great forum down.by having the audacity to "attack and insult" him and his fellow H&L believers.

Please do not disagree with David Josephs in language even remotely as insulting as his, or it will all be gone again!

Edited March 5, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

So can someone in the H/L cult please explain this? Did the originators of this dastardly plot KNOW that H/L were going to emerge from adolescence looking identical? If so...how?

First off Bernie.. "cult" is condescending and unnecessary... and then you have the nuts to ask for us to help you understand... maybe a Zig Zegler course might help?

anyway... children that look similar at age 11, 12, 13 will generally look similar later in life as well... if you consider a 5'11" 165 man and a 5'8" 135 lb "identical"...

which they are obviously not...

Those two images are from only a WEEK apart... the passport and other ID photos are a week apart.

Maybe you can help us understand how John Pic was able to pick LEE from HARVEY at every age and in every instance... HIS BROTHER Bernie...

So what you see and believe is your right.... it simply does not trump the evidence.

The rest of your post is just assumption and snide sarcasm

I don't expect any honest answers; the proponents of this theory are even more dishonestly evangelical than the SBT mongers, only ten times more damaging. No wonder Mr Mainstream writes us all off as freaks and 'head-the-balls'!

Please don't implore me to read the whole book David. You've had years now to tease out the most compelling parts; none of you have sold it. Why would I want to wade through a huge tome when its proponents refuse to answer simple questions about the gaping holes?

No worries Bernie.. You reading the very thing you are condemning would only look academically sound and responsible... 1000 pages and tens of thousands of source docs on the CD are only for people interested in an educated discussion..

It's a religion...and not a very good one at that!

You a religious scholar now too? you've read the entire Bible, the Torah and the Koran...? or do you just bash things you have limited knowledge about and hope others don't notice, even after you've proclaimed your ignorance and refusal to do your own investigation?

There's a line from a favorite band of mine: You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know...

Interested you can ID holes in theory you barely understand... but please... post a list of your questionable holes and I'll do what I can to help you see the evidence...

For at the root of all this is NOT John Armstrong, but the evidence he uncovered...

The EVIDENCE shows a Harvey & a Lee to be two separate people existing in two different spaces which were merged to create one Oswald for the WCR and beyond.

[Martin Blank]

So can someone in the H/L cult please explain this? Did the originators of this dastardly plot KNOW that H/L were going to emerge from adolescence looking identical? If so...how?

First off Bernie.. "cult" is condescending and unnecessary... and then you have the nuts to ask for us to help you understand... maybe a Zig Zegler course might help?

anyway... children that look similar at age 11, 12, 13 will generally look similar later in life as well... if you consider a 5'11" 165 man and a 5'8" 135 lb "identical"...

which they are obviously not...

Those two images are from only a WEEK apart... the passport and other ID photos are a week apart.

Maybe you can help us understand how John Pic was able to pick LEE from HARVEY at every age and in every instance... HIS BROTHER Bernie...

So what you see and believe is your right.... it simply does not trump the evidence.

The rest of your post is just assumption and snide sarcasm

I don't expect any honest answers; the proponents of this theory are even more dishonestly evangelical than the SBT mongers, only ten times more damaging. No wonder Mr Mainstream writes us all off as freaks and 'head-the-balls'!

Please don't implore me to read the whole book David. You've had years now to tease out the most compelling parts; none of you have sold it. Why would I want to wade through a huge tome when its proponents refuse to answer simple questions about the gaping holes?

No worries Bernie.. You reading the very thing you are condemning would only look academically sound and responsible... 1000 pages and tens of thousands of source docs on the CD are only for people interested in an educated discussion..

It's a religion...and not a very good one at that!

You a religious scholar now too? you've read the entire Bible, the Torah and the Koran...? or do you just bash things you have limited knowledge about and hope others don't notice, even after you've proclaimed your ignorance and refusal to do your own investigation?

There's a line from a favorite band of mine: You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know...

Interested you can ID holes in theory you barely understand... but please... post a list of your questionable holes and I'll do what I can to help you see the evidence...

For at the root of all this is NOT John Armstrong, but the evidence he uncovered...

The EVIDENCE shows a Harvey & a Lee to be two separate people existing in two different spaces which were merged to create one Oswald for the WCR and beyond.

i heartily second your comments and as that band says: sometimes you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

that is unless armstrong wrote a work of coincidental fiction like the warren report.

[Bernie Laverick]

So can someone in the H/L cult please explain this? Did the originators of this dastardly plot KNOW that H/L were going to emerge from adolescence looking identical? If so...how?

First off Bernie.. "cult" is condescending and unnecessary... and then you have the nuts to ask for us to help you understand... maybe a Zig Zegler course might help?

anyway... children that look similar at age 11, 12, 13 will generally look similar later in life as well... if you consider a 5'11" 165 man and a 5'8" 135 lb "identical"...

which they are obviously not...

Those two images are from only a WEEK apart... the passport and other ID photos are a week apart.

Maybe you can help us understand how John Pic was able to pick LEE from HARVEY at every age and in every instance... HIS BROTHER Bernie...

So what you see and believe is your right.... it simply does not trump the evidence.

The rest of your post is just assumption and snide sarcasm

I don't expect any honest answers; the proponents of this theory are even more dishonestly evangelical than the SBT mongers, only ten times more damaging. No wonder Mr Mainstream writes us all off as freaks and 'head-the-balls'!

Please don't implore me to read the whole book David. You've had years now to tease out the most compelling parts; none of you have sold it. Why would I want to wade through a huge tome when its proponents refuse to answer simple questions about the gaping holes?

No worries Bernie.. You reading the very thing you are condemning would only look academically sound and responsible... 1000 pages and tens of thousands of source docs on the CD are only for people interested in an educated discussion..

It's a religion...and not a very good one at that!

You a religious scholar now too? you've read the entire Bible, the Torah and the Koran...? or do you just bash things you have limited knowledge about and hope others don't notice, even after you've proclaimed your ignorance and refusal to do your own investigation?

There's a line from a favorite band of mine: You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know...

Interested you can ID holes in theory you barely understand... but please... post a list of your questionable holes and I'll do what I can to help you see the evidence...

For at the root of all this is NOT John Armstrong, but the evidence he uncovered...

The EVIDENCE shows a Harvey & a Lee to be two separate people existing in two different spaces which were merged to create one Oswald for the WCR and beyond.

"to ask for us to help you understand" You flatter yourself david. Like a child strayed from the flock I clearly need help to see the light. Sound familiar...?

"children that look similar at age 11, 12, 13 will generally look similar later in life as well" Brilliant! So that's it? That's the plan? Cross our fingers and hope that, facially at least, they will grow up to be identical. This intricate plan, that takes Armstrong 1,000 pages and racks of CD's to expose, all hinges on the two entites from different families growing through adolescence and emerging as identical. You couldn't write it...oh, he did!

"Maybe you can help us understand how John Pic was able to pick LEE from HARVEY at every age and in every instance... HIS BROTHER Bernie..." Yep, maybe I can help you there David. You see, as with most of this conundrum we have to choose who to believe and who not to. So, when a LN says "Why would Truly mistake Oswald (re the lunchroom meeting)? After all he was his EMPLOYER...?" We can firmly respond that we don't trust Truly's testimony. Likewise with Marina. And likewise with our Mr Pic too. He was complicit; he gave them what they wanted. Unless you are actually saying Pic is one of the H/L converts…?

Next...? Oh yeah, that's it...

I have said many times before David, I don't need to read the full bible to know whether I am a Christian or not. Conversely I believe in evolution, but I confess I have not read Darwin's Origin of the Species. I don't need to. There are plenty of books, articles, essays, polemics, forums like this where these ideas can be expressed and countered. From that I can form a view.

Either you are missing out huge chunks of convincing evidence, or what you are presenting just doesn't have traction.

It does divert from a lot of the pressing issues though...

Hmmm

[David Josephs]

I have said many times before David, I don't need to read the full bible to know whether I am a Christian or not. Conversely I believe in evolution, but I confess I have not read Darwin's Origin of the Species. I don't need to. There are plenty of books, articles, essays, polemics, forums like this where these ideas can be expressed and countered. From that I can form a view.

Either you are missing out huge chunks of convincing evidence, or what you are presenting just doesn't have traction.

It does divert from a lot of the pressing issues though...

Argumentative and defensive Bernie? That's how you want to have an open discussion about the evidence... so be it.

If you want to have a deep theological discussion with a priest you might want to at least brush up on the facts in THE BOOK.

I'm sure I can find hundreds of examples where your "christian behavior" does not jive with what that book which provides you the rules, offers....

Loudly proclaiming you don't need to read thoroughly or research what you offer your opinions on is .... well... what would you call it?

You don't even seem to have the ability to ask a direct question on the evidence yet you can proclaim it "cultish" and wrong...

"to ask for us to help you understand" You flatter yourself david. Like a child strayed from the flock I clearly need help to see the light. Sound familiar...?

Did you not post: "So can someone in the H/L cult please explain this?"

and then come at me with snide BS when I dismiss your lack of manners to do so anyway.... ?

or is your memory of what you wrote that poor? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21061&page=2#entry285270

Bernie... if you want to understand something, insults and attacks will not get it done...

What is it that bothers you most about the evidence supporting H&L... not your interpretation of images... not YOUR anything... what specifically do you disagree with in the Evidence and then go about showing us why it is not correct...

All you've done to this point is show you're ignorance and refusal to learn anything more since your mind is made up... while insulting the very thing you can't comprehend..

Is that what the BOOK you don't read, which offers the expectations and rules upon which to live your life as a Christian, tells you about how to approach your fellow man?

if so, Please post THAT passage....

Edited March 7, 2014 by Kathy Beckett
language

[David Josephs]

i heartily second your comments and as that band says: sometimes you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

that is unless armstrong wrote a work of coincidental fiction like the warren report.

You got that right my friend.... Bernie here exemplifies the reason John S. has to shut this place down...

Cheers and see you over at DPF

DJ

[Thomas Graves]

[...] ["Harvey" and "Lee"} somehow ended up close in size and weight and looking so much alike. Is plastic surgery the explanation for this?

[...]

Take a look at post 7 by David... ["Harvey" and "Lee"] look pretty identical to me.

So can someone in the H/L cult please explain this? Did the originators of this dastardly plot KNOW that H/L were going to emerge from adolescence looking identical? If so...how?

[...]

Bernie,

Gosh, I never thought of that.

How did they get "Harvey" and "Lee" to look so much alike, anyway?

Hmmm...

I GOT IT! I GOT IT!!! I GOT IT!!!

It was, It was ... Operation Paperclip! ... and, and, .... Oh My God! ... Yes! ... Selective Breeding and GENETIC ENGINEERING!!!

What? Operation Paperclip wasn't around that early???

Darn.

--Tommy

PS Warning to Bernie: Don't criticize DJ too much or accuse the believers of the "Harvey and Lee" thing of being in a kind of "cult," because if you do, DJ will get really, really defensive and obnoxious and will say, in so many words, that your opinions are just "stuff that you pull out of your posterior", that it's you that doesn't have any manners, and then he will try to silence you (and other "heretics" like you) by insinuating that you are trying to close this great forum down by having the audacity to "attack and insult" him and his fellow H&L believers.

Please do not disagree with David Josephs in language even remotely as insulting as his, or it will all be gone again!

Edited and bumped.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Bernie Laverick]

I have said many times before David, I don't need to read the full bible to know whether I am a Christian or not. Conversely I believe in evolution, but I confess I have not read Darwin's Origin of the Species. I don't need to. There are plenty of books, articles, essays, polemics, forums like this where these ideas can be expressed and countered. From that I can form a view.

Either you are missing out huge chunks of convincing evidence, or what you are presenting just doesn't have traction.

It does divert from a lot of the pressing issues though...

Argumentative and defensive Bernie? That's how you want to have an open discussion about the evidence... so be it.

If you want to have a deep theological discussion with a priest you might want to at least brush up on the facts in THE BOOK.

I'm sure I can find hundreds of examples where your "christian behavior" does not jive with what that book which provides you the rules, offers....

Loudly proclaiming you don't need to read thoroughly or research what you offer your opinions on is .... well... what would you call it?

You don't even seem to have the ability to ask a direct question on the evidence yet you can proclaim it "cultish" and wrong...

"to ask for us to help you understand" You flatter yourself david. Like a child strayed from the flock I clearly need help to see the light. Sound familiar...?

Did you not post: "So can someone in the H/L cult please explain this?"

and then come at me with snide BS when I dismiss your lack of manners to do so anyway.... ?

or is your memory of what you wrote that poor? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21061&page=2#entry285270

Bernie... if you want to understand something, insults and attacks will not get it done...

What is it that bothers you most about the evidence supporting H&L... not your interpretation of images... not YOUR anything... what specifically do you disagree with in the Evidence and then go about showing us why it is not correct...

All you've done to this point is show you're ignorance and refusal to learn anything more since your mind is made up... while insulting the very thing you can't comprehend..

Is that what the BOOK you don't read, which offers the expectations and rules upon which to live your life as a Christian, tells you about how to approach your fellow man?

if so, Please post THAT passage....

If you want to have a deep theological discussion with a priest you might want to at least brush up on the facts in THE BOOK. I don't need a theologocal discussion to teach me how it is possible for a dead man to raise himself three days later and physically ascend into the stratosphere. No expert will tell me that this is a book I can find any scientific reality from. Just because a priest may know the bible inside out doesn't therefore make it factually correct does it? Clearly you see yourself a 'priest' on this matter - and Harvey and Lee is your bible. And I? Just a miserable sinner...

I'm sure I can find hundreds of examples where your "christian behavior" does not jive with what that book which provides you the rules, offers. WHAT?As you can probably tell from the above quote, I am not a Christian. Wow, that just sailed blithely over your head didn't it? How can I put this in simpler words? The world is round. We are agreed on that surely? So would you read a 1,000 page book by the Flat Earth Society? No, of course you wouldn't. The very idea is too preposterous to invest the time required to read it. Unless I come across a forum/essay/article etc... with some convincing arguments that entices me to believe that something isn't quite what it seems, yes of course, then I would want to read the book. So far I (and many others) have seen nothing that would justify such an investment. It does become a tad nauseating for you to simply insist it is only true if you read the whole book.

"So can someone in the H/L cult please explain this?" Please look up the word - rhetorical. Did you honestly believe I expected an explanation even though the whole drift of my posts (and so far, your responses) are...that there isn't one!

"come at me with snide BS when I dismiss your lack of manners to do so anyway" Yes david because you didn't give an explanation as to how the plotters knew that these 13 yr olds would grow through adolescence and emerge as identical adults. What, really, are the chances of that?

What were you saying about manners David...?

"Bernie... if you want to understand something, insults and attacks will not get it done..." Erm, yes, quite. Show me one insult that compares with your above comment please. Just dismissing your theory for the childish fantasy that it is doesn't count.

"What is it that bothers you most about the evidence supporting H&L..." I guess it's the elitist, eclectic and staggeringly haughty way in which it is presented. Other researcher's work is trampled over, or it has to be viewd through that prism in order that it remains consistent with the 'faith'. One of the best posts ever placed on this forum, Sean's amazing work on doorway man, eventually lost steam and impetus when five or six pages were effectively hi-jacked so that this theory could be in some way shoe horned into the procedings. No wonder some of the better researchers don't post on here anymore.

"Is that what the BOOK you don't read, which offers the expectations and rules upon which to live your life as a Christian, tells you about how to approach your fellow man?" I haven't got a clue you are talking about. I think, and this is only a stab, you're saying that I would become a better Christian by reading H&L...? I wrote I don't need to read the full bible to know whether I am a Christian or not It's very interesting that you interpreted it in such a rigid way. I'm not a Christian btw, far from it. Why would I want to invest my soul in a book which I know contains huge dollops of superstition and conflicts with known scientific facts? Eg, dead men don't come back to life and ascend into the sky; the blind don't have their sight returned by touch ; seven fish will not feed a multitude of people; no one can walk on water...and so on. These things I know, from newspaper articles, forums, essays etc... But your logic says I'm not in a position to claim to be a non believer because I haven't read the bible in its entirety.

I would refer people to a great thread from two years ago where Greg Parker ripped the whole Beauregard School nonsense to threads. I recall David you pretty well gave up the ghost and did what all the 'followers' do...You repeatedly changed the subject. I can't find it or I would have provided a link (it's probably shredded now). It taught me enough to know that some of these coincidences can be easily explained away with better research, and also that the integrity of some of H&L proponents have been imported from Fetzerland.

Hey David, I'm just a keen student on this forum. It's up to you to convince with your superior knowledge. There is nothing I can teach you about Harvey and Lee, the book. But I reckon the truth can be found only by reading lots of books, without preconceived ideas, or a desperate neccessity for it to fit an already made conclusion. But you are hooked on this now. No ammount of refutation will change your mind. You are committed for the long haul come what may; you can't go back now. That's not the scientific method. Let's face it, it's barely a method!

For you, Doorway man or any future new development concerning Oswald) is approached from the viewpoint of "Where does this fit in with H/L?" Whereas, most researchers, certainly the good ones, are just striving for the truth - wherever that may go.

It's self indulgent and i honestly believe is being used as a 'spoiler'...

[Bernie Laverick]

i heartily second your comments and as that band says: sometimes you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

that is unless armstrong wrote a work of coincidental fiction like the warren report.

You got that right my friend.... Bernie here exemplifies the reason John S. has to shut this place down...

Cheers and see you over at DPF

DJ

How incredibly elitist! This is my first posting on here for over a year. And yet I am the reason the forum is closing down?. If you and your theory can't take the heat don't spit your dummy out and start name calling David, you're making yourself look like a 12 yr old brat! I'm actually embarrassed for you...

Edited March 5, 2014 by Bernie Laverick