David Josephs Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) 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! Tommy, bring your circus over to the DPF... see if anyone puts up with your rhetorical specualtion and lack of presentation skills... no wonder JA has had enough of you people. Edited March 25, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 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 David, you do know that the person you have just said "You got that right my friend" to was actually agreeing with me, don't you? Read the next bit... that is unless armstrong wrote a work of coincidental fiction like the warren report... Quite! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) 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! [...]. no wonder JS has had enough of you people. [emphasis added by T. Graves] Sounds like a case of the Pot calling the Kettle "Black," David. It seems to me that you're the one who resorts so quickly to defensive, obnoxious, and inflammatory language. And with every new reply on your part, it just gets worse doesn't it. --Tommy Edited March 6, 2014 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 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... Make as many ASSumptions you want Bernie... that you don't understand the analogy is obvious. 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. Conversely I believe in evolution, but I confess I have not read Darwin's Origin of the Species And yet again the analogy is lost to you.... you believe in "X"... that you haven't read the basis for "X" and think you know what it is really about thru osmosis is of no matter... "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! You present a case and then ask for an explanation - and now claim it was a rhetorical question... my mistake for taking anything you post seriously... wont happen again. "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? I did indeed, in your haste to show off your wit and sarcasm you must have missed it... "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. you've neither read the material or familiarized yourself with any of its sources and proudly proclaim you don't "get" it... I was being kind. People like you don't deserve a platform such as this, and is the main reason he is closing up shop. "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. They left because of people like you Bernie.... Sean did great work and the ball was picked up by a number of us, myself included... I don't seem to remember YOU adding anything of substance to the discussion. "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. Wow are you self-absorbed.... To be a better Christian, reading the Bible might come in handy... To pass the Bar exam, studying the Law could help... Discussion the H&L evidence, or your opinions about it would be so much better facilitated if you actually KNEW anything about the subject. They are called analogies Bernie... so people who have a hard time following along can get it.... look it up. 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. At the time we had that discussion I was not nearly as well versed in the subject as I am now... I saw that I needed to be more infomred to respond and defend the evidence... what you fail to understand is that this is about the EVIDENCE and the fact the FBI had in its possession the originals of these records while only forwarding copies of copies. Maybe you can fill us in on why the FBI needed to do a year by year chronology of OSWALD's life to help build a case against him for 11/22? I was curious too, so I read the FBI reports on James Earl Ray... the detail on his early life, his GRADE SCHOOL and JR HIGH school days is virtually non-existant... the FBI report of Dec 9, 1963, which became the basis for the WCR is devoted to the man's entire life, in detail.... Maybe tell us why his JR High school records from NYC, Ft Worth and NOLA were so important, and why they reveal alteration and manipulation... You can't since you haven't a clue what I'm talking about... but you still can have that uniformed opinion and ask cute rhetorical questions... 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! Bernie, that you don't concentrate when you read is plainly obvious. I spent many, many months compiling the information and reading the source materials... the EVIDENCE you so casually shrug off as unimportant enough to look at yourself... Being informed about something takes work and time... There is much about H&L that I do not agree with, yet there is alot I do simply because I've compiled the information and see the conflicts very easily. I will ask again... what have YOU done to further your understanding H&L other than call me a cultist and approach the subject with a completely closed mind? I'm terribly sorry you are so incredibly lazy and don't have the skills or the time to read a book, to ask some honest questions and discuss the honest answers without attack. Thankfully your opinion is just that... opinion based on you being too proud to learn anything about the material... 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. So now you're after the TRUTH... are you Bernie? So what are your TRUTHS here? A frontal shot? Alteration at Bethesda? Falsification of records and testimony? What aspects of the TRUTH related to conspiracy do you hang your hat on... for it seems to me that you have no position, that you offer nothing of your own work, and you act the xxxxx so people will look your way for a second before laughing at the attempts... It is the people like you... and that xxxxx Lamson, who I see is lurking about, who gave Simkin and the rest of us here fits. Pull up stakes and ply your trade where your BS will not be tolerated, instead of here where your easily identified tactics of hijack and annoy work so well... The evidence of FBI tampering of the records is offered in the WCR itself... one simple example is CE1961 and 1962, one following the next, contradicting each other... as does the other men who spent time with HARVEY 1957 5 3 HARVEY with ALLEN FELDE JACKSONVILLE, FL USMC BaseKeesler AFB (Henderson Hall Arlington VA) Biloxi MI Radar School Donald Peter Camarata told the FBI that he first met Lee Oswald when theytraveled together on a train from Jacksonville, Florida to Biloxi on May 2. Camarata said that during the time he knew Oswald, "He had no recollection .... of any remarks on his part concerning Communism, Russia, or Cuba. " 24Edward J. Bandoni and James N. Brereton met Lee Oswald when they traveled together on the train from Jacksonville, Florida to Biloxi on May 2. Neither man was interviewed by the FBI or Warren Commission.Martin Schrand also met Lee Oswald when they travelled together on the train from Jacksonville, Florida on May 2. Lee Oswald and Schrand were assigned to the same unit in the Philippines on January 5, 1958 when Schrand was killed by a shotgun blast while on guard duty.It's self indulgent and i honestly believe is being used as a 'spoiler'... Bernie.. I really could care less about someone who can't even find the time to learn what his opinions are based upon... I started my analysis to prove to myself it was NOT POSSIBLE... that John and the Evidence was wrong... yet that was not the case.... I am sure you have not read thru all the WC Documents... there are quite a few... yet they are the source materials for much of the evidence and conclusions presented in the WCR... and contain evidence that the WC made sure never saw the light of day... Bill Simpich's work stems from a huge number of the HSCA Segregated CIA files found at MFF... one can spend YEARS culling thru the documentation that was never offered as evidence yet contains the MEAT of the operational conspiracy. Mr. Laverick, you simply do not have enough knowledge in any one subject, especially this one, to be qualified to tie my shoes... What I've done is collaborative, with the help of many researchers and authors... those you so sincerely respect here at this forum and elsewhere... and even THEY do not have the balls you have to declare a conclusion one way or another because they too do not have a command of the information as I do. You and the Lamsons of this forum will soon loose their platform... sadly for so many, so will those qualified to offer their work for discussion and review by knowledgable peers. But there are places they can go... I wonder again Bernie... what do YOU bring to the table beyond Tommy's patented rhetorical questions, the inability to have a civilized discussion and the use of Adhom to cause friction... btw, THAT was rhetorical... What you do from here is not my concern... blast away and show 'em all that big brain of yours.... from my vantage point and from the emails I receive you're hoping to be noticed for your baseless opinions while strutting your ignorance proud as a peacock.... You aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know.... and there is so much you obvioulsy have no clue about... bu-bye now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Blank Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 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 David, you do know that the person you have just said "You got that right my friend" to was actually agreeing with me, don't you? Read the next bit... that is unless armstrong wrote a work of coincidental fiction like the warren report... Quite! i agree with david on harvey and lee. the last line was sarcasm. you and i, bernie, are a million miles apart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) 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... Make as many ASSumptions you want Bernie... that you don't understand the analogy is obvious. 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. Conversely I believe in evolution, but I confess I have not read Darwin's Origin of the Species And yet again the analogy is lost to you.... you believe in "X"... that you haven't read the basis for "X" and think you know what it is really about thru osmosis is of no matter... No, David it is clearly lost on you. You just can't see it can you? Darwin's book isn't the only source of information on his theory, correct? One can discern from numerous places all the info you would need to know, without having to read darwin's Origins of the species. What does Darwin say about DNA? Nothing because it wasn't known about then. but guess what? It fits like a glove to his theories. You see he had a great theory that just keeps on giving. Neither do you have to read the entire Das Kapital to know what you feel about the basic tenets of Marxism. You can find them everywhere along with his other less definitive work. If we had to read THE definitive account of every subject before we are allowed to form an opinion we would live in a very sad world. I think some of us already do. "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! You present a case and then ask for an explanation - and now claim it was a rhetorical question... my mistake for taking anything you post seriously... wont happen again. No David stop flattering yourself;you really aren't as clever as you think. I rhetorically asked for an explanation in the full knowledge that none would be forthcoming. "You present a case" No this is YOUR case I was presenting, remember? "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? I did indeed, in your haste to show off your wit and sarcasm you must have missed it... "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. you've neither read the material or familiarized yourself with any of its sources and proudly proclaim you don't "get" it... I was being kind. People like you don't deserve a platform such as this, and is the main reason he is closing up shop. That's your idea of an insult is it? After your above quote that's all you can throw at me because I don't "get it"? People like you don't deserve a platform such as this, and is the main reason he is closing up shop. Probably the most stupid words I have ever seen on this forum and I demand an apology. This is the first thread I have posted on since mid 2012 you fool! How dare you insult me like that? I am the reason it's closing? Someone who hasn't posted for nearly two years. Keep going David you are looking more idiotic by the minute! John Simpson was right when he said on here you will find some of the nastiest people you are ever likely to encounter in real life. Well said John... "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. They left because of people like you Bernie.... Sean did great work and the ball was picked up by a number of us, myself included... I don't seem to remember YOU adding anything of substance to the discussion. That phrase again "People like me". Who do you think you are? And for the record...you trashed that thread like you do on all your others. "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. Wow are you self-absorbed.... To be a better Christian, reading the Bible might come in handy... To pass the Bar exam, studying the Law could help... Discussion the H&L evidence, or your opinions about it would be so much better facilitated if you actually KNEW anything about the subject. They are called analogies Bernie... so people who have a hard time following along can get it.... look it up. Oh deary me...what do you have to do to get through? I don't want to be a better Christian! So why should I need to read the bible. How can you not get this??? I can form an opinion from many sources... documentaries, essays, other books, articles. Do you really not understand this or are you simply trolling? 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. At the time we had that discussion I was not nearly as well versed in the subject as I am now... I saw that I needed to be more infomred to respond and defend the evidence... you were ripped apart with great intuitive research what you fail to understand is that this is about the EVIDENCE and the fact the FBI had in its possession the originals of these records while only forwarding copies of copies. Maybe you can fill us in on why the FBI needed to do a year by year chronology of OSWALD's life to help build a case against him for 11/22? I was curious too, so I read the FBI reports on James Earl Ray... the detail on his early life, his GRADE SCHOOL and JR HIGH school days is virtually non-existant... the FBI report of Dec 9, 1963, which became the basis for the WCR is devoted to the man's entire life, in detail.... Maybe tell us why his JR High school records from NYC, Ft Worth and NOLA were so important, and why they reveal alteration and manipulation... You can't since you haven't a clue what I'm talking about... but you still can have that uniformed opinion and ask cute rhetorical questions... Wow, you're so clever david. Only you can see the big big picture, eh?. As I said earlier just because a priest could wipe the floor with me on his knowledge of the bible doesn't mean that it's contennts are true does it? Still haven't answered my question though have you? Is that what all this elitist dummy spitting temper tantrums are about? 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! Bernie, that you don't concentrate when you read is plainly obvious. I spent many, many months compiling the information and reading the source materials... the EVIDENCE you so casually shrug off as unimportant enough to look at yourself... Being informed about something takes work and time... There is much about H&L that I do not agree with, like what? yet there is alot I do simply because I've compiled the information and see the conflicts very easily. I will ask again... what have YOU done to further your understanding H&L other than call me a cultist and approach the subject with a completely closed mind? Here we go, just like Fetzer, anyone who doesn't agree has a closed mind. The arrogance is putrid! I'm terribly sorry you are so incredibly lazy and don't have the skills or the time to read a book, to ask some honest questions and discuss the honest answers without attack. I take heart that any newcomer happening upon this thread will conclude that the name-caller and bad mouther dredging the depths with personal insults ,will conclude, as I have, that you have no argument other than supreme haughty arrogance. Thankfully your opinion is just that... opinion based on you being too proud to learn anything about the material... 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. So now you're after the TRUTH... are you Bernie? So what are your TRUTHS here? A frontal shot? Alteration at Bethesda? Falsification of records and testimony? What aspects of the TRUTH related to conspiracy do you hang your hat on... for it seems to me that you have no position, that you offer nothing of your own work, and you act the xxxxx so people will look your way for a second before laughing at the attempts... It is the people like you...Here it is again that's the 3rd time now. Repeat after me David I HAVE NOT POSTED ON HERE FOR NEARLY 2 YEARS. and that xxxxx Lamson, who I see is lurking about, who gave Simkin and the rest of us here fits. Pull up stakes and ply your trade where your BS will not be tolerated, instead of here where your easily identified tactics of hijack and annoy work so well...2 years you fool!!!! It just shows, that this is how you routinely lash out when caught out. Pity I haven't been on here for 2 years or you may have got away with it. As it is you just look very foolish The evidence of FBI tampering of the records is offered in the WCR itself... one simple example is CE1961 and 1962, one following the next, contradicting each other... as does the other men who spent time with HARVEY 1957 5 3 HARVEY with ALLEN FELDE JACKSONVILLE, FL USMC BaseKeesler AFB (Henderson Hall Arlington VA) Biloxi MI Radar School Donald Peter Camarata told the FBI that he first met Lee Oswald when theytraveled together on a train from Jacksonville, Florida to Biloxi on May 2. Camarata said that during the time he knew Oswald, "He had no recollection .... of any remarks on his part concerning Communism, Russia, or Cuba. " 24 Edward J. Bandoni and James N. Brereton met Lee Oswald when they traveled together on the train from Jacksonville, Florida to Biloxi on May 2. Neither man was interviewed by the FBI or Warren Commission. Martin Schrand also met Lee Oswald when they travelled together on the train from Jacksonville, Florida on May 2. Lee Oswald and Schrand were assigned to the same unit in the Philippines on January 5, 1958 when Schrand was killed by a shotgun blast while on guard duty. It's self indulgent and i honestly believe is being used as a 'spoiler'... Bernie.. I really could care less about someone who can't even find the time to learn what his opinions are based upon... I started my analysis to prove to myself it was NOT POSSIBLE... that John and the Evidence was wrong... yet that was not the case.... I am sure you have not read thru all the WC Documents... there are quite a few... yet they are the source materials for much of the evidence and conclusions presented in the WCR... and contain evidence that the WC made sure never saw the light of day... Bill Simpich's work stems from a huge number of the HSCA Segregated CIA files found at MFF... one can spend YEARS culling thru the documentation that was never offered as evidence yet contains the MEAT of the operational conspiracy. Mr. Laverick, you simply do not have enough knowledge in any one subject, especially this one, to be qualified to tie my shoes... What I've done is collaborative, with the help of many researchers and authors... those you so sincerely respect here at this forum and elsewhere... and even THEY do not have the balls you have to declare a conclusion one way or another because they too do not have a command of the information as I do. You and the Lamsons of this forum will soon loose their platform... sadly for so many, so will those qualified to offer their work for discussion and review by knowledgable peers. But there are places they can go... I wonder again Bernie... what do YOU bring to the table beyond Tommy's patented rhetorical questions, the inability to have a civilized discussion and the use of Adhom to cause friction... The whole world can read this thread and patently see that it is you throwing all the insults. Do you not bother reading what you write ? btw, THAT was rhetorical... What you do from here is not my concern... blast away and show 'em all that big brain of yours.... from my vantage point and from the emails I receive you're hoping to be noticed for your baseless opinions while strutting your ignorance proud as a peacock.... You aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know.... and there is so much you obvioulsy have no clue about... bu-bye now! Still no explanation/answer to my question. You see, that;s why it was rhetorical. And that is why you are being so rude and insulting. You simply don't have the answer.. Thanks though because you have just advertised that to the whole world. Well done. Edited March 7, 2014 by Kathy Beckett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) 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? "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 amount 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'... [emphasis added by T. Graves] Excellent post, Bernie. Regarding Greg Parker's arguments against the H&L myth or cult or theory or whatever it is, I'm afraid he deleted all of his posts here, but one can go to his website and find a lot of it there. You might have to register there as a member to find all of it, but it's easy to do, quick, and well worth it, IMHO. Here's a good place to start: "H & L: The Early Years" http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t702-harvey-lee-the-early-years?highlight=Harvey+++%2BLee And here's one called "re: Armstrong's Magic Tooth and the Facts About "Harvey" at Beauregard": http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t227-armstrong-s-magic-tooth-and-the-facts-about-harvey-at-beauregard?highlight=Harvey+++%2BLee --Tommy Edited March 7, 2014 by Kathy Beckett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Thanks Tommy... I regularly visit Greg's site, it's excellent. No trolls allowed it would seem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Whew. David - how is it that two young teens who did not resemble each other in height and weight end up looking so much alike? I get that there were two conflicting descriptions floating around of LHO. But the faces are so identical that they would seem to be twins. What is Armstrong's explanation according to you? Or yours? Did one of them shoot JFK? Just curious whether Armstrong eventually outlines how the H&L story intersects with the assassination itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) Whew. David - how is it that two young teens who did not resemble each other in height and weight end up looking so much alike? I get that there were two conflicting descriptions floating around of LHO. But the faces are so identical that they would seem to be twins. What is Armstrong's explanation according to you? Or yours? Did one of them shoot JFK? Just curious whether Armstrong eventually outlines how the H&L story intersects with the assassination itself. Excellent questions, Paul. It seems that whoever was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald, during the weeks and months leading up to 11/22/63, looked sufficiently like him to fool lots of people. Fooled them well enough in fact that they were later willing to testify (and make statements to the DPD, FBI, etc) that they had seen LHO somewhere where he couldn't have possibly been at the time. So, the impersonator(s) and Oswald must have looked very much alike facially. IMHO, it's unrealistic to think that the bad guys could have chosen another young boy ("Harvey"?, "Lee"?) to start merging with Lee Harvey Oswald's so early on in both boys' lives, and that the bad guys could somehow know that they would look so much alike, facially, as adults. --Tommy Edited March 6, 2014 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Whew. David - how is it that two young teens who did not resemble each other in height and weight end up looking so much alike? I get that there were two conflicting descriptions floating around of LHO. But the faces are so identical that they would seem to be twins. What is Armstrong's explanation according to you? Or yours? Did one of them shoot JFK? Just curious whether Armstrong eventually outlines how the H&L story intersects with the assassination itself. Excellent questions, Paul. It seems that whoever was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald, during the weeks and months leading up to 11/22/63, looked sufficiently like him to fool lots of people. Fooled them well enough in fact that they were later willing to testify (and make statements to the DPD, FBI, etc) that they had seen LHO somewhere where he couldn't have possibly been at the time. So, the impersonator(s) and Oswald must have looked very much alike facially. IMHO, it's unrealistic to think that the bad guys could have chosen another young boy ("Harvey"?, "Lee"?) to start merging with Lee Harvey Oswald's so early on in both boys' lives, and that the bad guys could somehow know that they would look so much alike, facially, as adults. --Tommy Oh Tommy...Showing your lumpen proletarian ignorance again. You haven't read the full tome so how can you know anything? Do you even have a right to answer the question? Further, should you even be allowed to post here? You were right in an earklier post, david willl just come back like Cinque, like Carlier, like Fetzer...guns blazing and insults flying...Does David live in Brazil? So much for the elitist DPF, apparently they can spot 'entities' from a thousamd yards...But some clearly do slip the net. You won't get an answer Tommy/Paul. because there isn't one and that's why these people resort to abuse; you'll just get a load of reminders of what a sniivelling know-nothing you are.. Apparently it is because of people like me that this forum is closing. Yet I haven't posted on here for nearly two years. Clearly that is his stock response to others who dare to question the great sage. It's a shoddy way of avoiding the question. It hasn't worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) Whew. David - how is it that two young teens who did not resemble each other in height and weight end up looking so much alike? I get that there were two conflicting descriptions floating around of LHO. But the faces are so identical that they would seem to be twins. What is Armstrong's explanation according to you? Or yours? Did one of them shoot JFK? Just curious whether Armstrong eventually outlines how the H&L story intersects with the assassination itself. Excellent questions, Paul. It seems that whoever was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald, during the weeks and months leading up to 11/22/63, looked sufficiently like him to fool lots of people. Fooled them well enough in fact that they were later willing to testify (and make statements to the DPD, FBI, etc) that they had seen LHO somewhere where he couldn't have possibly been at the time. So, the impersonator(s) and Oswald must have looked very much alike facially. IMHO, it's unrealistic to think that the bad guys could have chosen another young boy ("Harvey"?, "Lee"?) to start merging with Lee Harvey Oswald's so early on in both boys' lives, and that the bad guys could somehow know that they would look so much alike, facially, as adults. --Tommy Oh Tommy...Showing your lumpen proletarian ignorance again. You haven't read the full tome so how can you know anything? Do you even have a right to answer the question? Further, should you even be allowed to post here? You were right in an earlier post, David will just come back like Cinque, like Carlier, like Fetzer...guns blazing and insults flying...Does David live in Brazil? So much for the elitist DPF, apparently they can spot 'entities' from a thousand yards...But some clearly do slip the net. You won't get an answer Tommy/Paul. because there isn't one and that's why these people resort to abuse; you'll just get a load of reminders of what a snivelling know-nothing you are.. Apparently it is because of people like me that this forum is closing. Yet I haven't posted on here for nearly two years. Clearly that is his stock response to others who dare to question the great sage. It's a shoddy way of avoiding the question. It hasn't worked. You're right, Bernie. I probably should meditate on the whole huge book for about five years and then have David Josephs explain it to me, you know, to try to make some sense out of it, even if, heaven forbid, he can't tell me how "the bad guys" chose so-far-in-advance a boy (born in Hungary or Russia, or...) and be certain that this Russian-speaking boy would look so much like the (future) Lee Harvey Oswald as to be able to physically impersonate him some ten or fifteen years down the road! --Tommy PS: DJ's pronouncing that you are "the kind of person" who is going to make John Simkin close down this great forum again is just an attempt to stifle the voice of anyone who disagrees with him on the controversial issue of H&L. Keep up the good work, Bernie, and above all, try to remain civil. No need to stoop to DJ's level (typographically "veiled" profanity, insults, etc) to make your excellent points. Edited March 6, 2014 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) 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 David, you do know that the person you have just said "You got that right my friend" to was actually agreeing with me, don't you? Read the next bit... that is unless armstrong wrote a work of coincidental fiction like the warren report... Quite! i agree with david on harvey and lee. the last line was sarcasm. you and i, bernie, are a million miles apart . Fair do's Martin, but Armstrong's opponents couldn't have put it better Edited March 6, 2014 by Bernie Laverick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Hi Martin, Three forum members have now politely asked how the originators of this plot could possibly have known that the two chosen adolescents, from different families and countries, would emerge near on facially identical in adulthood. Why is that such an unreasonable question to ask? We've asked David but all he wants to do is hurl insults. I genuinely want to know how Armstrong's supporters rationalise this glaring inconsistency. If you know, I would dearly love to see the answer. Best regards, Bernie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Blank Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) Hi Martin, Three forum members have now politely asked how the originators of this plot could possibly have known that the two chosen adolescents, from different families and countries, would emerge near on facially identical in adulthood. Why is that such an unreasonable question to ask? We've asked David but all he wants to do is hurl insults. I genuinely want to know how Armstrong's supporters rationalise this glaring inconsistency. If you know, I would dearly love to see the answer. Best regards, Bernie as i have politely asked those on the other side of the line to reconcile all of armstrong's and others facts about the two oswalds in some way -- the knife cuts both ways. so i will try if you promise to do so as well. i will go first but i need your word before i do. and remember i speak and represent only myself and any problems you have with others are your problems with them. Edited March 6, 2014 by Martin Blank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now