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

12,052 profile views
  1. Ha ha ha!! Comedy gold. David Josephs reprimanding someone for being a fanatic. Ha ha ha!!!!!
  2. 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 Bi
  3. 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
  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 m
  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 handler
  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 an
  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
  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....
×
×
  • Create New...