Jump to content
The Education Forum

Bernie Laverick

Members
  • Content Count

    581
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bernie Laverick

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 07/08/1958

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

11,416 profile views
  1. Bernie Laverick

    Bursts of Cosmic Improbability

    Ha ha ha!! Comedy gold. David Josephs reprimanding someone for being a fanatic. Ha ha ha!!!!!
  2. Bernie Laverick

    "My New Thread"

    Hi Michael, hope you're well buddy. You and I have joined forces a couple of times on here, notably in criticising H&L and other wild far out wacky ideas. But I'm surprised at your stance here over PM as I personally think it is potentially the most exciting development of the last 50 odd years. There has been some outstanding work done on this by those who, in other threads and issues, like you and I, criticise the obvious ridiculous red-herring distractions that infest the JFK community. Also, this is NOT just about photographic evidence. There is an infamous thread on here started by Bill Kelly but dominated by Sean Murphy's masterful teasing out of the facts leading up to that point. Since then ROKC, and Bart and Adrej in particular, have made even more headway. I understand your main contention. In reality it is your only contention. (That is, the paragraph in bold above). But there are many theories as to how Oswald ended up as the one and only patsy, and even more as to when. If this IS Oswald, then logic dictates that the plotters did not pre plan his guilt, and that another outcome was originally desired. Hence the utterly ridiculous and tortuous public transport 'escape' scenario. You may ask, if your scenario is correct, why did they allow him to leave the building on his own in the first place to go God knows where and talk to God knows who? If he was the long term pre planned patsy why wasn't he 'dealt with' at TSBD? It isn't as certain as you think that Oswald was being set up months before the assassination. 'Sheep dipping' someone to better smear their characters for some future espionage activity doesn't necessarily mean that that activity is going to be an assassination. We don't have categoric proof that he was the pre determined patsy and therefore that doesn't preclude him being somewhere he subsequently 'shouldn't have been' for the LN theory to work. I believe it was a rushed job to tie it down to Oswald, and him alone, to make the best of what they had, and then try their best to fit all those hundreds of loose square pegs into the hundreds of empty round holes. They're still doing it now. Here's a question then Michael. Where WAS Oswald in your opinion? Bearing in mind that if you say anywhere OTHER than the sniper's window... your same rule applies. "Why was he allowed to be there when he was supposed to be at the sniper's window?" He had to be somewhere for God's sake! And unless you believe him to be the LN at the window (which you don't) logic says he must have been somewhere else. I haven't seen a more in depth explanation for where that place may have been other than the PM research. Best wishes buddy
  3. Bernie Laverick

    Titovets vs Armstrong

    Yep, that jumped straight out at me too, Bart. What? A Russian's word? Over an AMERICAN'S? Poppycock! Don't listen to him. He's probably a baby-eating commie like all the rest! The level of debate on this forum has gone beyond infantile...
  4. David, that is a very reasoned response and I agree it offers up a lot for thought. But as you pointed out, it doesn't count as evidence. Sandy is selling it as evidence. It isn't. Nearly everything about this case has been torn up, burned, fabricated, touched up, added to etc... It's almost impossible to know what evidence to rely on. But the main thrust of your post is to ask where MY research leads me. This is a bit unfair and a little hypocritical. There are many members on here who are simply fascinated with the subject but do very little, if any, research. They pop up all over the forum asking questions and looking for further verification to points raised by other members. Is this wrong of us? There are several who fit that category (obviously I don't want to name them) who add a sentence or paragraph every now and then supporting the H&L theory. You never ask for their research bona fides. They never add any more information, yet you are perfectly ok with that. They make their contribution by reading the arguments and show their support for you or Jim without adding any further research. I don't have the slightest problem with that. It is their right as members to agree or disagree with whoever they please. As do I. There are no rules stating that posters MUST be researchers... unless they support H&L. You talk about attacking and being indignant. It works both ways. I remember you and I once having a discourse that was very polite, we disagreed, but we were respectful. Once it became obvious I wasn't going to be convinced by your argument YOU were the one who started the nastiness. Same as everyone else who comes on here who doesn't believe in H&L. It's a well worn pattern. At first there is a polite period, but once that person doesn't buckle under, or shut up, all the usual accusations of contelpro etc... come out which then deteriorate into personal slagging, as you have done on many occasions. You want to convince the public of your theories? But if you can't convince that large community who have an interest and some knowledge of the assassination, how are you ever going to get wider acceptance? Truth is, I don't believe you really want that. None of you seem to have any ambition as to where to take your H&L story. If I were as sure about something as you are I would be hammering on every door, every radio station, every publication, every non msm journalist. I just wouldn't stop until I got it out there. But you guys seem to want to spend more time on here trying to convince people like me, when even if you do it won't advance your cause not one millimetre. Forget me. Forget Tracy. Forget all those who are ultra sceptical and crack on with what you need to do, because this strategy is getting you nowhere. Bernie
  5. So this is how it all works on the good old Ed Forum. A member makes a wild statement peppered with words like "possibly" "maybe" more likely" "assuming" and so on... Then when you ask for some evidence for said statement you suggest to them..."Don't expect me to dig it up and prove it to you. Do your own damn work". How astonishingly arrogant is that? But David doesn't believe there was a "car full of imposters" do you David? So how come he isn't aware of your "supporting evidence. Is it because it doesn't exist?
  6. None of this is evidence! Absolutely none of it. It is wild speculation, at best. It may even be true. But you have provided no evidence for it. "Evidence for Driver being a CIA Asset: The CIA hired the driver. Therefore he's a CIA asset." Seriously? That's your 'evidence'. Just saying and believing that the CIA hired the driver, does NOT count as 'evidence' that the 'driver' (whose existence we have absolutely no proof or even a rumour of) was indeed hired by the CIA. It's your belief. You are perfectly entitled to that belief. But do not pass this off as evidence because it just makes us all look stupid. "Evidence for there Possibly being More than Two Riders: There is no evidence that there were only two riders. So I had to allow for other numbers." Unbelievable. His evidence for MORE than two in the car is that there is NO evidence for ONLY two in the car!! Let that sink in. Because on that basis, as we have no evidence for ONLY one car, let's "allow for other numbers" and assume that there were many cars. If there is no evidence for only two in a car maybe it is because there is no evidence for any of it! But I get it. We're not allowed to doubt that the CIA would be capable of doing whatever monstrous deeds our imaginations can conjure up. Let's just say any old nonsense our heads can come up with, and because the CIA are demonstrably such a malign force it ALL must be true. It's a cheap and childish way of joining the dots. It's cheap because by its very nature it's impossible to disprove. It's a joker card you can play every time you run out of cards! "Evidence for CIA Involvement: Mountain of evidence that Oswald was a CIA agent." Can you provide any names Agent Oswald was using when he was carrying out covert activities? Because when we want to know more about the "CIA driver" we are told his true identity wouldn't be revealed whilst carrying out covert activities. So what name did Oswald go by when also on such activities? Like buying trucks at Bolton Ford say? Why would CIA agent Oswald be ok using his own name, but the other CIA agent you have zilch evidence for can't be revealed because he was on "covert activities" See how it gets used as a convenient get out of jail card when the narrative become problematical? Do Jim and David believe there were multiple imposters in the car drive to Mexico? Or is Sandy skiing off piste here?
  7. "Can you disprove it Bernie?" Yes. But you would never listen. Propositions need some evidence to back them up. You have NONE! Grow up....
  8. As in the Theory of evolution? No "maybes" no "possibly"s and no assumptions on that are there? And there was certainly NO conjecture. A theory is a set of propositions yet to be unproved. That's it! Nothing to do with conjecture or wild guesswork masquerading as 'research'. The theory of evolution is a fact until someone disproves it with new evidence. Please look up the meaning of the word "theory". And yet you expect us to take your guesswork seriously? When you said there were "possibly more" In the car, do you have anything factual to go on? All we have is your guess that his handlers wouldn't have let him drive so they "probably" got another imposter to do it. Was he also an Oswald Look-alikey? Why did they need more imposters in this car? Where's the evidence for it? It sounds like an episode from Peppa Pig! You are on record as saying that you believe that there were "multiple" doppelgangers in operation around LHO. Did they all decide to go for a car ride together? Good job they didn't crash, can you imagine the first responders' faces on seeing a "car' full" of injured look-alikeys? And wouldn't all that have, er... slightly compromised the whole plot? Back to the drawing board Sandy and see if you can relive the glory days with another "indisputable" find.
  9. In response for support for yet another wild off the wall guess by Sandy we are treated to "most likely" "assuming" "probably" "possibly more" and then staggeringly following that with a "which means..." And all this in less than a 100 words!!! "Oswald couldn't drive. Assuming the plotters knew this, they would probably want his impostor to be a passenger." And yet you have this same imposter buying cars and trucks and applying for jobs while his 'other half' is in Russia!! But for this they hire a "car full of imposters" to keep up the subterfuge. Though you only mentioned two; Oswald and his driver. It must have been a very small car! Maybe they went by bicycle. Realising you could only rustle up two for your "car full" you then add the magic words..."Possibly more". So, there we have it. There was a car full of imposters because Sandy Larsen says so. He needs no evidence. A few maybes, a sprinkle of assumptions and mix thoroughly and you will most likely get the right answer, just like Sandy has. Great detective work. Your explanation is flawless.
  10. "Prove it!" Don't have to...it's up to you to prove that that didn't happen. You're the ones telling the story so the onus is on you to nail it. You haven't! It's your ball, it's your game and it's your theory. It's not our fault that there are multiple alternative explanations, al of which are infinitely more feasible, that you can't disprove happened. Once again another "indisputable" piece of 'evidence' crumbles into the psychotic dust from which it emerged.
  11. Wiki? Everyone knows it's a CIA front. That's why they have planted this piece of information to put everyone off the scent. It nearly worked too. Fortunately we have folk on here who can see through all the deception and catch them out. Three cheers for H&L. Let's see what madness accrues from this latest humiliation...
  12. Knowing "more than anybody else", by definition, makes you "ultra knowledgeable". No mischaracterisation there. "We Must believe you" because you have just declared yourself "more knowledgeable than anybody else". You are the self -declared 'go-to' man on this. The whole point of stressing to anyone who will listen how knowledgeable you are on this subject is a cheap way of claiming some high ground; that is, the high ground you can't occupy with the evidence. It's a pathetic attempt to claim some sort of superiority on the subject, which, in your mind, would mean you are less likely to be wrong than others who know much less. Including a military dentist! This is how much confidence you lack in the argument at hand. It's such a give away! You have to bolster this story by ramming the credentials of your supposed superior knowledge and intelligence down our throats, as if that makes up for the gigantic deficit in the whole saga. It's like saying... "look, I know there's jack xxxx to go on, but trust me when I say I'm right because on this subject I'm more knowledgeable than anybody else and my superior intelligence (which at the top .2% almost certainly makes me cleverer than anyone else here) gives me a free ride and you lot should just listen and not criticise". You cannot reason with such delusion...
  13. I copied and pasted YOUR words!!!! "My point in saying that was that I understand this issue more than anybody else posting in this thread. And that that does give me some level of authority" Did you write that sentence? If yes then I have mischaracterised NOTHING. I've just held a mirror up to your insufferable arrogance and you clearly don't like the reflection. Not my fault. Deal with it!
  14. NO!!! You actually wrote..."My point in saying that was that I understand this issue more than anybody else posting in this thread. And that that does give me some level of authority"....That was copy and pasted from just two posts up. Please apologise for deliberately misleading forum members. And you did say that Tom's dentists was wrong. And you should know, being a self appointed authority on the mater. And you have stated that you have the highest IQ on this forum...presumably that too gives you more authority. Keep digging Sandy. Looking forward to the apology....
×