Jump to content
The Education Forum

Bernie Laverick

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bernie Laverick

  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....
  15. I understand this issue more than anybody else posting in this thread. And that that does give me some level of authority. - Sandy Larsen Says it all. You can't argue against this kind of pig-headed arrogance. Because Sandy has declared himself ultra knowledgeable he has also decided that we must also accept his self given authority. He says he knows more than anyone else on this thread about the subject in hand, so we MUST believe him and listen to the one and only voice on this. That's what Sandy is thinking, so we should follow the clever man's lead and listen to what he has to teach
  16. Funny that Jim, I don't recall you intervening when I was called "vermin" and when my wife and daughter were disgustingly used as a weapon to attack me. Funny that you only see this as being a one way street. This must be the tenth time you have made a short post knocking those who criticise H&L, but we never hear YOUR opinion on the subject. Do you believe those photos show two separate individuals? If not then the entire H&L story has to go out of the window. How can you not see this? If you think they ARE two different people then you have to go ALL the way down the rabbi
  17. Ha ha ha!!! What a joke. It took a biometric test to sort them out and you don't even think there is a strong resemblance. Ha ha ha!!! Scientific-Sandy bolsters up this stupidity and informs us that by using his self-declared superior intelligence he also came to the same 'independent' conclusion. Well who would have thought that??? "There certainly is some resemblance." Jesus Christ, is there any end to this madness. YOUR OWN witnesses says they looked identical!! These are the very people you have built this silly little web from, the ones you ram down our throats as proof that the
  18. So you admit that it takes this level of sophisticated biometric analysis to be able to tell the two apart. That must mean that they were remarkably similar, or why the need for such an in depth analysis? But you have categorically stated, as have all your cohorts, that they looked nothing like each other! Sandy has even done it on this thread! David Josephs will post, yet again, the sloping shoulders photo to demonstrate how dissimilar they really were. Yet apparently it takes a biometric test in order to scientifically sort out 'Harvey' from 'Lee'. The H&L witness testimo
  19. Take a pinch of clerical confusion, add a few oddball witness testimonies and mix thoroughly. You are now ready to make your Tin-Foil-Hat Pie by constructing any amount of crackpot gibberish theories the paranoid imagination can conjure up. Keep it wild and keep it impossibly outlandish. Never use rationale or reason, as this will seriously compromise the pie's texture (and may even blow the oven up). Be bold, be aggressively arrogant and be insufferably patronising, as this will season the pie to the required bitterness. Now begin the process of ramming the uncooked bitter pie down peop
  20. This is a lesson to others on here who never show their hand but post barbed comments aimed at members who simply don't accept someone else's wacky theory. You're not allowed to do that apparently. By this logic of course we should just leave Robert's theory unanswered and not be "disruptive" "vermin", (as the likes of Michael Clark accuse others of), by pulling it to pieces. Hypocrites!
  21. As usual, we get the same old responses. Why can't people open their minds and see that the American intelligence services were capable of doing anything in order to achieve their goals? They apparently once gave LSD to some of their own soldiers just to see what the affects would be, so switching Moorman in broad daylight would pose no problem at all. It is SO obvious that these are two different Moormans. I believe it was part of an ongoing intelligence plot involving these two women who were chosen at childbirth to act as body doubles should there be a need to infiltrate one of them into th
  22. Sandy, "There have been occasions where David J. and Jim H. have told me that their opinion on something differs from John Armstrong's" That's fine, but why are those doubts never raised in public? It's almost like there has to be an agreed and unified position on any of the issues H&L raises before presenting a united front on any public platform. If the promoters of H&L do have any doubts or queries then they are to be raised 'internally' behind closed doors because "John understands the whole picture better than I ever will. So he's in a better position in making a d
  23. I'm suspicious that twenty years after the creation of a 1,000 page book with such excruciating detail that not one single jot of it has subsequently been seen to be wrong by those who promote it. How likely is it that such an intricate work doesn't contain even one single error (other than typos etc...)? I've asked many times where they think JA my have erred but get no answer. I ask if it's likely that EVERY witness sighting of a an 'inconvenient' Oswald is without a shadow of a doubt correct and thus confirms H&L? And that NONE are mistaken...? Any takers?
  24. Well according to the H&L gang the people of Bolton Ford talked. Didn't they? So did Frank Kudlaty at Stripling, according to them, he talked too. In fact many others they ascribe to seeing 'Lee' while 'Harvey was in Russia...also talked! A huge part of the 'evidence' for H&L comes from people...er, talking! So why have no more since come forward and...talked? .
  • Create New...