Bernie Laverick

Rabid dogs? Thugs? VERMIN?????? That's what the Nazis called the Jews!! Proud of that are you? I think you need a bit of anger management buddy. In the meantime the mods should suspend you until you can learn to be civil. And the loser starts the post by saying...."It's just really disappointing that we can't have a decent discussion about a decent article..." Without your nasty name calling Michael? Is that what you meant to ask?

I don't know what game you are playing here Sandy but a few pages ago you told us all how you had read this link and couldn't make head nor tail of it. You said you would criticise it but you didn't understand the point Greg was actually making. Your words. Do you deny that? Now apparently you 'can't' find it even though it is the second one on the list entitled "PS-33 Beaureguard School Reords"!! Duh!!! Here is the link so you don't have to look through more than two topics from the main menu Jeremy posted. So did you truly read this before? Or did you just assume it would be wrong so didn't bother? It's very odd behaviour Sandy. To demand that a link be spoon fed to you - a link that, apparently, according to you, you have already 'seen' and commented on - because you can't be bothered to look two topics downwards is lazy beyond belief. It shows us that you don't want to read anything that may contradict your microscopic world view, so you simply pretend you can't find it. Shame that you forgot you had already apparently seen it and commented on it...! Oops! Sounds like a porky to me... https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records Found any mistakes JA may have made yet Sandy? None of you EVER answer that do you? I wonder why? Is it because whatever answer you give you know how stupid you would look? Yes of course he made a few mistakes...Ok, list them. No he didn't make one single error...That's never happened the history of all human endeavour and any reasonable person would see that. I know it's embarrassing but you cannot give me ONE new development in this case. 'Lee' would be 78 today. That means potentially there has been FIFTY FOUR years for someone to come forward since 'he' disappeared and 20 years AFTER Armstrong wrote the book. Could you please name me one? Same for Marguerite...not one single sighting since that weekend. How do you explain that? I didn't bump into LHO's doppelganger but I'm here reading all about the assassination of JFK. You'd think that if a truck dealer's assistant apparently saw 'Lee' when he shouldn't have done it figures that there must have been lots of others who did also. After the assassination wouldn't some of them have been even slightly intrigued to do a bit of research to find out if others had also seen a LHO imposter? After all, they would KNOW he didn't look anything like the one shot by Ruby, (because they looked totally different right?) and that therefore there may have been something very suspicious and strange going on. You would be intrigued wouldn't you? And yet not ONE new witness inspired by the H&L story has found their way onto any of these forums to verify that?? You found out all about this topic, but as yet not one person who must have had some form of contact with 'Lee' at some point in all those years has come forward with any new information And to make matters worse...that fact doesn't bother you in the slightest. It's a full blown cult. Scary...

"You can't solve this case only by looking at pictures." Says the man who posts thousands and thousands of photos to 'prove' his point. Where they disprove his point we get..."You can't solve this case only by looking at pictures."

"...Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald pasted his own face on his application for a 1959 passport and not Lee's..." They must have looked very similar then? Only a page ago though, you strenuously told us that they didn't!!! That was in response to me pointing out that ten pages previously you admitted that they were almost identical!! When it suits the H&L crowd 'they' were almost identical. When it is pointed out how fantastically impossible that two unrelated boys picked for some future espionage plot could fortuitously grow up to look that identical, then we are told that they weren't at all similar, one is taller, has sloping shoulders etc... But they looked so alike they could share an official identification photo! Ha ha ha! As I have said, this is just a game for Jim. Presumably a lucrative one given the thousands of H&L copies that must have been ordered. But in my opinion he doesn't really believe it. The yapping hyenas can't get beyond their own issues to see this for what it is. But Jim is playing a different game. He's good at it. Very good. But ultimately, he has nothing to play with. Jim reminds me of the premier league footballer having to play for a part time Sunday league team manned by amateurs and dreamers. Jim thinks he can captain this rag-bag collection of one legged footballers into the big time. If only they'd stop scoring own goals...

No because that would be impossible given the laws of our universe. But no one has proved that one individual attended two different schools. We believe, as in the post you have 'cleverly' responded to, that there is a common sense answer! Ever used those two words before Sandy? Common sense? If you did it would sure lessen your confusion...

Is there even one piece of the 'Harvey and Lee' evidence that doesn't have a common-sense explanation? No. Not one Jeremy. And furthermore, there is nothing else left to discover. There are no new witnesses; there are no new documents, there is not one jot of new research; there is no further evidence of a doppelganger LHO or a doppelganger Marguerite since the weekend of the assassination. Armstrong covered Everything! EVERYTHING! Pointless looking because the boss has found everything there is to find. How do they know Armstrong has found everything? Cos he said so! Where did 'Lee' go? They aren't even interested in finding this out. It is totally irrelevant to them as to what became of 'Lee'. They've not looked nor have the slightest intention of doing so. Imagine how stupid we would look if they actually did a bit of research and found a new witness that corroborated their story. "No need", is the reply. They've got all they need. The H&L investigation stopped when Armstrong published it. Since then it has been treated as a static, carved in stone bible, rather than a basis for a co-ordinated and structured search for the truth. Jim doesn't believe a word of it either. It's so obvious!

Thanks for providing the blow up version. Can you confirm though, was LHO hit by a fist? Or was it a bullet from a Magnum! There's hardly any of his mouth left!!!

So he had a dental bridge did he? Is that a fact Sandy? Or are you just riffing with the melody a bit? You have no proof nor evidence or even any hearsay that he had a dental bridge. You've just plucked that from thin air and then presented it as fact. H&L is like a virtual story isn't it? Lots and lots of inter-changeable plastic parts that you can put together in different ways to fob off any objections. Did you miss the irony of telling us all about your relative's teeth in a post designed to illustrate how nobody ever mentions your relative's teeth?

Yes and had one of the above been accused of assassinating JFK but there was a possibility of there being a doppelganger....It might, just might, become in that context a bit important wouldn't you think? You mentioned a variation of this before. Do you remember? Then it was just the one friend who had a tooth missing and that apparently no one ever mentioned it, (except for you in that post!!) But of course you would remember it. As you did. And of course you would mention it. As you did. This is Sandy telling us about a guy with a missing tooth and that no one ever mentions it....Not even you? Right now? Jeez! Give me strength! I'll find the post where you told us this. But I see that the examples have grown. Because now we have a multiplicity of family members with varying degrees of dental imperfections and once again Sandy doesn't even mention it! He doesn't mention it because "it's not a particularly interesting topic". YOU have just told us all about your brother's false teeth in a post designed to show how people never talk about other folk's dental status!!!!! Jeez! Can you see your schoolboy error here Sandy? YOU have now established just how important this detail is under certain circumstances. As I said to you the last time you said this (but then only mentioned just the ONE friend. Hmmm). If one of the above had gone missing and the police needed a description...would you just leave the missing tooth bit out? Silly men intoxicated by their own puffed up sense of self importance.

Yes! That's Lee! And he's got a 13" head. Now I get it! Foul play. Big plot. Bad CIA. Ok, well done. I'm now a convert. But how did he end up in Harvey's grave?

Jim a few pages ago even YOU admitted they looked almost identical...You swap and change and you tack and you weave. It's officially impossible to argue against H&L. Not because it has any merit. But because you won't/can't even agree what 'it' actually is! When you get your story straight come back and try and convince more than the handful of people in twenty years of pushing that it has so far lured

Can't you get a fix...?

Er...I was. It's called S.A.R.C.A.S.M.

You are a trouble causer; anyone who questions H&L is. You are also stupid and ignorant with not ounce of original thought. Have you even read the book? No? Oh, there's tons of stuff in there that we haven't talked about. Oh yes all the compelling parts are in there if you read it. Just because we don't share those bits doesn't mean they aren't there. We just share the bits that have an inherent alternative explanation, but the bits from the book that we don't talk about on here prove the theory to be 100% correct. If you buy/read the book you too will be the recipient of this superior knowledge and you will be convinced of the ultimate truth. Don't go by what we write on here, that doesn't mean a thing. It's ALL in the book! So Michael, since you haven't taken out a mortgage to buy a book who's central themes have been discussed infinitum on here over many many years, you are simply not qualified to even make a comment unless it is in agreement. So give us your best shot, son! Let's see your chops! You are a joke sunshine a complete joke! I thought I'd give David Josephs a day off!

To be fair Dawn, while sadly, I do sometimes get reduced to venting my frustration in a non too pleasant manner, you have to agree that we also receive as much, if not more in return. My frustration is both honest and clear. As I explained before in an earlier post, I temporarily believed in the possibility of H&L. I was actually a passive advocate on this very forum. I cannot be accused of being closed minded when I started from a position of support. Then I read the rebuttals from others and compared the differing explanations. Because that's what adults are supposed to do. I should have been a prime target as an interested student of the assassination, someone looking for answers with no preconditions, and like a lot of H&L supporters, someone who despaired at the naivety of believing that our governments aren't capable of doing whatever it takes to further their own murky agenda. I think that's what first intrigued/attracted me to the idea. That we have to think BIG and not rule anything out, including H&L. But there are just too many unanswered questions, and the more I witnessed on here with the deliberate flame wars and personal insults, but worse, the tacking and weaving and not being totally honest convinced me that H&L was actually a more potent weapon against discovering the truth than anything that a 1,000 DVPs could achieve. I don't believe those proposing it are working for anyone other than themselves; it's not cointelpro, or some carefully laid out scheme, or any other such wild accusation. I simply think you have bought into a scenario that for me doesn't fit the known facts. So in my opinion, for what it's worth, H&L is an obstacle to overcome and I cringe at the very idea of the MSM deciding to focus in on this aspect of the case. What on earth would you say to them? Best regards...

Hi Gene, this isn't a provocative question, you've seen all the posts in this thread, which of the four options do you think is the most likely to explain how Lee's body is where Harvey should have been, if H&L has any credibility at all? Not knowing the answer is fine...But that surely must put a massive question mark on everything for you. If DVP were to make bold outrageous statements pointing at LHO's guilt without any evidence to back it up you would rightly see straight through it, wouldn't you? You would demand that he backed his nonsense up with some facts. If he then offered you multiple explanations, none of which with any evidence, you would probably become a little irritated towards the end. This is what is happening here. Data dumps and with reams and reams of info mean nothing if you can't explain how the known reality conflicts with the H&L story.

Brilliant!!! At last!!! Some answers. Really pleased you've re joined the conversation, we've not heard from you since, well, since you were challenged to a debate... So someone is now, at last, going to explain how 'Lee's' body ended up in 'Harvey's' grave. Was the exhumation faked, as Jim has hinted at countless times? Or was it just the findings, also hinted at by Jim countless times? Or was the mastoid operation performed on Harvey in NY in 1952/3 like Jim has told us countless times? Or did he just coincidentally have the same operation as a boy when he was in Hungary or Russia, as Jim has told us countless times? Do you not see our problem here? I know it's all about piffling little details like this, and we are just being trouble causers asking for them. What right do we have anyway to question an event that you are 100% sure happened but cannot provide any evidence for? Why won't we just take your word for it? Who needs evidence anyway? It's such good fun and so intoxicating being a "part" of this fantastic story if only the "non believers" (as we are creepily labelled!) would just butt out and leave us to enjoy ourselves. So, once and for all, maybe James would like to offer his opinion as to how the above scenario came to be. I'm not expecting any answers. Abuse? Oh, there'll be plenty of that....

Trot along Mr Creepy Angry Man. You're not included in this. This is about the big boys, the ones who have done the appropriate research. It is precisely why I suggested there should be no interruptions in this proposed debate. You absolutely idolise yourself don't you? You see in the mirror an uncompromising warrior single-handedly taking on the entire might of the American intelligence services with your inherent ultra superior knowledge. We see a man in a tin foil hat with quite profound issues... So trot along trouble causer and go check out the alien/lizard moon landing theory instead of wasting everyone's time here with your ill-informed amateur 'research'.

So so predictable. Jim cannot do without Sandy and Mr Creepy Angry Man, butting in and confusing the issue. This is the cover he hides behind. Switching topics, tacking and weaving, slipping and sliding and making it up as he goes along. Knowing that his little lieutenants will squawk up to confuse and derail the isuue. You have been offered to debate this under more structured conditions so it can't be side tracked, which apparently you "welcomed""! You've been asked to provide a moderator of your own choosing. You would have had first choice on topics to debate. You have been given a rock solid guarantee that no one else will intervene. Just you and Greg. And yet...we all knew you would try and sneak your way out of it. I thought for a few moments you may have had the guts to go through with it. You didn't rule it out completely but I saw the seeds of your pathetic excuse germinating in your first answer. It's cowardly beyond belief. And it really shows you have absolutely no faith whatsoever in the garbage you throw on here every day. I've known for ages that you don't believe in any of this nonsense. It's a job. Like selling real estate. (You actually remind me of the archetypal forked tongue estate agent...) Most independent readers of this forum will take from this that Jim doesn't have the confidence to debate the book he's been trying to sell on here for many years. That's why he's here. To sell books. He will almost certainly dismiss this and point to how few books he's actually sold... ...and with not a hint of irony. Coward!

COWARD!!

Greg is banned from posting on here, and as I said before, it is unreasonable to ask other members not to contribute if they so wished. If this is going to go ahead the whole point should be to facilitate a non confrontational format so that just the two people can be allowed to develop their thoughts without it being unintentionally side tracked with other people's random contributions. If they do have a debate, it should be on a neutral website where content cannot be deleted by either side. (I'd personally hate to spend time debating a topic, only for it to disappear for whatever reason.) I don't know how we overcome this level of paranoia. Why couldn't a "neutral" website also just do that? I'm trying to visualise what a neutral website actually means. Do you have any specific suggestions? If so, let's look at them. But being neutral means, of course, that neither has any control over the content. Should it be debated at ROKC with a non ROKC moderator and the content did all get deleted, what would that say? It would say that the arguments against H&L have been totally buried!!! It would be an admission that the theory cannot be countered. If it were the other way round I would certainly interpret it as being your inability to answer the pertinent questions and that's why you destroyed all the content. Your credibility would be in tatters! Likewise... But you guys are so paranoid. The implication behind this is that your messianic belief in H&L is so strong that Greg will DEFINITELY have to delete it all after you're done! Come on, can we just grow up a bit please? I didn't believe that Jim would agree to this and I think I'm going to be proved right. I knew he wouldn't baulk at the idea of a debate, in fact that he would thoroughly "welcome it". But could he be nailed down to actually see it through without objections to venue? Or format? Or, any other perceived obstacle that allows him to back away? I don't think you really want to debate this with Greg, but you can't openly say that so it looks like other impediments will have to prevent you... If ROKC is out of the question for you, then could you please suggest a venue that could facilitate a debate in the format I have outlined above?

The exhumation findings show that the buried person was not Lee. Ha ha ha...Because Voebels "thought" it and because his aunt took him to a dentist is all the proof he needs!! Any documentation for said dentist? Has anyone looked? When it comes to evidence Sandy you are very easily impressed aren't you? Anyway, I'm sick of us amateurs arguing the toss. This debate should be conducted, somewhere, by the two leading protagonists without interruption from anyone else. It could be done fairly and it could even be moderated independently. I propose that Jim and Greg, and Jim and Greg alone, have a structured debate around aspects of the H&L theory, to give them both room to develop their points and counterpoints. I know for a fact that Greg would more than willing to do this and has even suggested that Jim propose someone to moderate, as long as he isn't a full on supporter obviously. Clearly it couldn't be done on this forum, as we have no right or power to prevent other members from joining in if they so wished. Now hear me out here, I have a proposition. This debate could be carried out on ROKC as long as Jim has a strict assurance that no one else will be posting other than himself and Greg. That there will be a courtesy code so that both can stick just to the facts and the differing interpretations of those facts. That it is not to become a bun fight, but for once, an honest attempt to document, without my irritating sophistry, without the antagonisms, without Sandy's, at times, confusing input, without the cross posting that can sometimes cause confusion. etc... so as to document the fors and against and have a legible record for the differing explanations to the known facts. It's got to be worth a try surely? You may not like us ROKC folk, we swear a bit and we enjoy a bit of good humoured childishness, but none of us are here to be liked...are we? But I know that the members there will show respect to Greg, and not want to break the terms of the debate. And I personally think that that should be extended to not starting other threads to make comments on the main one, but clearly I have no right or power to insist that either. Maybe Greg can... Greg wanted to debate this with Armstrong but he was fobbed off. Maybe Jim will take the challenge...?

1 - Not enough evidence, that's why most on here dispute the missing tooth. Just because you need to believe it doesn't make it a fact! 2 - Stands to reason if, like us, you never thought it was lost in the first place. Everything is as it should be.... 3 - Therefore...NOTHING! 4 - Correct, because like LHO's record shows, he had a mastoid operation, and didn't lose a tooth. Just as the corpse shows us. 5 - ????? Logic isn't your thing is it Sandy? So, given we think/know that 'Harvey' didn't exist, clearly it would be impossible for me or anyone else to provide evidence that a mastoidectomy didn't take place on him!! Again, logic not your strong point here is it Sandy? And YOUR explanation for this is...? You hung your hat on it all been faked (of course, no evidence for this was provided). Now you believe it was performed on 'Harvey' somewhere in East Europe by pure chance at the same age and on same ear as 'Lee'. (And again we have no evidence for that either). But Jim was telling us all only three pages ago that it was "most likely" done in 1952/3 in NY. Now both of you obviously think that that wasn't "likely" at all because you've completely and unceremoniously ditched it. But have you done so for good? I think not. Your only 'proof' it is 'Harvey' is your chronically irrational belief that 'Harvey' existed. That's a logic that just feeds itself! None of you ever doubt anything do you? EVERYTHING you say is so obviously 100% correct, even when you have to constantly swap explanations with no shame, no humility and no grace. "It was faked!" And anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid and clearly under estimates what these plotters are capable of. LSD is thrown in our face to show how wicked they can be, the logic being, if they can do that then faking an exhumation would be a walk in the park. But for the 13th time in this thread you have punched that in our face only for two or three posts further on to abandon it and try another explanation! Now you're down to... the Hungarian (or was he Russian?) refugee (or was he an orphan?) having had the exact obscure operation on the same ear to explain the unexplainable. That will be ditched shortly and we'll all be back to NY 1952 again, which was always Jim's preferred explanation. If only us pesky kids would stop meddling with the fantasy he could have got away with it. We really ruin your day when we ask for evidence don't we?

1 - You say Harvey, we say Lee Harvey Oswald. 2 - You say Harvey, we say Lee Harvey Oswald. 3 - You say Harvey, we say Lee Harvey Oswald. 4 - Correct. 5 - Therefore Lee Harvey Oswald had a mastoid operation, as per his medical records. "And that is the reason why it is necessary for you to prove Harvey did not have the operation." How can I prove a mastoid operation didn't happen, on someone who didn't exist???????? Jeez!!!! You're right Sandy, you got the better of me....

I have to present evidence that he DIDN'T have a mastoid operation???????????????????? The arrogance!!!!!!!! Or, given it's your theory why don't you prove that he did!! And you have to or the whole fantasy is totally compromised. Sandy for the 15th time this isn't just any piece of the jigsaw. It is crucial to you. And you are all floundering like tiddlers out of water. Sorry but...you failed!