Bernie Laverick

Why. Was. 'Lee's'. Head. Found. In. 'Harvey's'. Grave?

Ah, I see, how scientific of you! So because you believe all the other 'evidence' to be true then it stands to scientific reason that the exhumation findings must have been faked. Great logic! It must have been or how explain all the rest? But what actual proof do you have that it was faked? NOTHING!!! The only indirect evidence you have is your belief in a fantasy tale whereby anything that doesn't fit...must have been faked. That's it! That's all you've got. I'm actually going red with embarrassment for you...

Sandy you can't just keep saying a preponderance of evidence and steadfastly refuse to provide even ONE piece of it. If you have I'd tell Jim, because he definitely has NO evidence to show how the mastoidectomy was faked. And neither have you. You have ZERO evidence. So why say it exists? Are you really that desperate? It's this kind of out and out sneakiness that reduces the stock of this forum. To deliberately mislead in such a blatant manner like this is bang out of order! Show us the "preponderance of evidence" then. Where is it?

Let's say that one day Oswald can be definitively proved to have been on the front steps during the assassination; it therefore means that all the other 'evidence' against him is wrong. If a LN accepts that he was on those steps he cannot then say, "But I still think all the other evidence condemns him". If he is definitely on the steps the other evidence against him is just wrong, plain and simple. Likewise, if 'Lee's' skull is found on Harvey's body after an exhumation, then the entire narrative of H&L is therefore wrong and all the other evidence melts into the dust. I know that's sad, and that this tingling feeling you all get being the sole discoverers of this gigantic plot is fading by the minute as the absurdity is revealed with every ludicrous off the wall answer. I've been a member of this forum for over 12 years. I've seen some great threads. There's been some fantastic work done on here. But always, at any time during this period, there has always been the deliberate spoilers; those whose sole intent is to distract and bog down more honest researchers. I believe that the whole H&L charade is just an elaborate hoax designed to discredit the JFK assassination community, and thereby strengthen the official narrative. But Michael, I know what you mean when you deride those who "resort to absurdities and ad-hominems" and then finish with calling us..."disturbed threatened children". Nice. "...when presented with the strongest of evidence". So how do you explain how 'Lee's' head was found on what should have been 'Harvey's' body? Which do you think constitutes the "strongest evidence" of the following scenarios, all of which have been robustly promoted as being the obvious explanation? Explanation 1 - 'Harvey' had the exact same mastoid operation by an unknown surgeon in an unknown hospital so that the two boys' skulls would match up should one have to be dug up many years later. (Now abandoned) Explanation 2 - 'Harvey' had the exact same mastoid operation but performed after he had died despite evidence of natural healing occurring... (Now abandoned) Explanation 3 - The exhumation and the subsequent examination were all faked and though there was no scar whatsoever the scientists were coerced or tortured into faking the entire findings to make 'Harvey's' skull consistent with 'Lee's'. We are now left with option 3. So Michael, what is the "strongest of evidence" for that to have taken place? Is there ANY evidence at all for that scenario? None? Yet you implore ME to "bring something to the table"!! The onus is not mine. I haven't made a ludicrous claim. If I did, the onus would be on me to back it up with facts and evidence. If I didn't have those facts or that evidence, or if all I had when faced with definitive proof that my claim is nonsense was, "it was probably faked", I feel sure you would have little respect. If I did it ad nauseam and had done so year after year and still didn't provide evidence of how it was faked or any other facts to demonstrate this you would soon believe that I had a negative agenda. I'm sick of these snake oil salesmen effectively leaving a trail of mucous over the brilliant research some members of this forum have achieved. It lessens their work and has become a bigger obstacle towards reaching some judicial conclusion than anything DVP and his ilk could do. As for trying to get inside another member's head. That's desperate. It was a way to demonstrate that for all this super elaborate plot to work we have to believe that they would be prepared to do one of the above to achieve it. And much much more. The H&L guys say they that this secret is so sacrosanct, so top secret and sensitive that they will never allow the truth to emerge. And yet...it has! Apparently... Why haven't they been stopped?

But you have discovered it, according to you. If this H&L secret is so razor sharp sensitive that not under any circumstances should it EVER be revealed...how come you are being allowed to do so? Do you fear you may be in danger Sandy? After all you are spreading the 'truth' about one of the most mind boggling acts of incredible subterfuge carried out by utterly ruthless individuals who would stop at NOTHING to ensure that this is never revealed. But you keep revealing it. I ask you again Sandy. Do you not feel in any danger from those who may, consistent with their past and ongoing behaviour, want to shut you up, like many other truth-seekers before you? After all you are spilling the beans man! You've put your head over the parapet and before you lies the cold dark forces of a ruthless machine designed to spit out anyone or anything that would lead to the discovery of this plot. You do agree that these people are capable of anything, don't you? Yet here you are every night being allowed to show the world everything you've got without any fear of recrimination from those who have, according to you, been capable of almost mind boggling gymnastics to remove ANYTHING that may point to the 'truth'. But they just cannot stop Jim, Josephs, and Sandy Larsen. No sir!. Maybe you're being followed, or your phone is being tapped, or that myself, Greg, Michael, Jeremy, Tracy, et al have been 'sent' here to discredit your efforts as part of some cointelpro operation organised by high placed members of the CIA who know all about H&L and are desperate to extinguish it. It really is doubtful Sandy, you do know this don't you? Truth is, you will be of no interest to anyone. Because it didn't happen. These childish excuses to get around the peer reviewed scientific studies that prove conclusively that there was only one historic LHO are now beyond risible. I will be proposing that Jim Hargrove is removed from this forum for deliberately, consciously, and wilfully bringing into disrepute. We don't let Fetzer on here for that very reason. We should apply the same ethics with Hargrove as well. It's not Waterstones you know Jim...

"I dare to point out that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence presented by me and others in this thread shows that the exhumation results were fixed..." What overwhelming preponderance of evidence have you shown? You haven't the faintest idea how 'Lee's' skull was found inside 'Harvey's' grave. You've been banging on about how they had both had the same operation and that explains the identical surgical scar. You even cited the LSD test to show just how far the super bad guys would go, and that performing an operation on a six year old boy in anticipation of him being dug up decades later is totally consistent with how the SBGs operate. But now you've ditched that and decided it sounds a bit too cranky. So we go back to the generic fall back cop-out - "the results were fixed"! Jim doesn't really believe any of this. It's just a product to sell. Like houses. Or toothpaste. Jim reminds me of those unscrupulous slippery salesmen who sell over-priced crappy time-share apartments to gullible fools. You only need a small hit rate to make your margin. Books can be overpriced too. Some books are hugely expensive. Again, you only need a small hit rate to make a healthy margin. I'm not saying Jim is profiting from this activity. Far from it. This is the H&L book so no one's getting rich here. How many have been sold in twenty years? 48? 62? Over a 100? Says it all....

And this is the hypocrite constantly baiting us to debate Greg's demolition of his nonsense here on this forum instead of posting links to Greg's. Jeez, they have absolutely no shame! Stop being a coward Jim and explain why 'Lee's' skull was found in that grave when your whole theory hinges on it being 'Harvey'? So Harvey had the operation when...?

Because it's your theory and the onus is on you to prove it. Just writing off a major piece of documented evidence that proves that the boy who had the operation, 'Lee', is the one who was in that coffin, when your whole theory depends upon it being 'Harvey' is incredibly dishonest. Can you not see how silly this is? It's like a LN finally accepting that Oswald was on the steps at the time of the assassination, but still thinks all the other 'evidence' convicts him! "That is just one hypothesis among others" What others? Is there any documented evidence to back up these other hypothesis or are they just a collection made-up-on-the-spot, off the wall 'what-ifs'? This thread should now be declared over and archived. The bottom of the barrel has been reached and it's bringing this whole forum into disrepute.

Sandy thinks that operation was performed on a dead body. Does that seem in any way likely? That just leaves you with the clone ('Harvey') having it done by the super bad guys as a young boy just in case he is dug up so his skull will fit the medical record. Isn't that as likely as the two unrelated boys in question growing up to look almost identical fifteen years later? (Sloping shoulders excluded...well, on just the one photo anyway!) The game's up. You've put up a thoroughly dishonest fight from start to finish. You've distracted many good threads with your nonsense. And you've massively assisted the forces of the real culprits by painting this community as utter cranks and therefore allowing a free ride for the official narrative. Well done. But you've reached the end of the road now. This is the killer punch. No school records. No sloping shoulders. All that is meaningless if the following conundrum cannot be solved. So let's talk about this exhumation and see how it can possibly be that 'Harvey' turns out to have had the exact same childhood surgical operation that we know 'Lee' had? We say it is because they are the same person. I know, it's a wild crazy idea. (Funny how 'Lee' disappeared off the scene the very weekend of the assassination and was never heard of again.) If you have no explanation for this everything else is totally meaningless. In fact by failing to address this just makes the alternative explanations for the 'discrepancies' and witness testimony as being the probable explanation for them. As H&L is now ruled out, (unless they can jump this mastoid bridge), we can be sure that what pitiful 'evidence' they have presented is almost certainly explained by a montage of all the possible reasons given by many people opposed to this silliness. Look, take H&L out of the equation, and who cares why the school records don't seemingly corroborate? Harvey, (the one shot by Ruby) was the clone of 'Lee' but when he was exhumed he had 'Lee's' skull (which hadn't been detached!). Maybe it was when he was in Hungary learning Russian and he just coincidentally had the exact same medical issue as Lee did. After all they grew up to look identical, why wouldn't that include scarring from an obscure medical procedure carried out at exactly the same age and ear? What's it to be chaps? Abuse? Info dump? School records. SILENCE is the tactic they always use for this crucial but unexplainable problem.

Yep, that's exactly what we say about your cult members. You do know that you now belong to a cult? You don't like name calling? Go and tell Josephs that. That is ALL he has to offer... Pot, kettle, black. So Sandy do you honestly think that they now performed this operation after he died? Wouldn't that be immediately noticeable to a medically trained eye? Would an operation on dead tissue heal in the same way it would had they been alive? If the super bad guys had been capable of somehow manipulating the findings why did they bother with the operation in the first place? Why didn't they just coerce, torture or bribe those doing the exhumation to prove there was NO mastoid operation. But no, they performed an operation on a dead man so that when he was exhumed people could never be suspicious that they were two Oswalds. Really? And you wonder why we call you a cult! It's either that or...They did it when he was 6 years old in anticipation of the above scenario? Jim believes that. Josephs believes that. But you don't. This is your story so it is expedient of you to provide the proof of what you think happened. Just telling us that the CIA were prepared to give people LSD to see what happened in your eyes is PROOF of H&L. Nope, sorry, that's too childish for words. Show us the proof!!! If I tell you that I believe the Queen of England is a serial killer the onus is on me to prove that. It is not on you to disprove it. If my 'evidence' for this was some bizarre story that isn't backed up by documentary evidence, but tittle tattle from a few unreliable witnesses and differences in the record, you probably wouldn't even engage me in a debate. So where was Elizabeth when the Yorkshire Ripper was on 'his' killing spree in the 70's? It was SO obviously her that did them. Actually that's not true, MI5 created a double of her to do these killings, (because these super bad guys are capable of anything!). We don't know why they did this but it will be because of something bad they were planning. Of course you may think that is ridiculous. If so, it's because you must be Cointepro trying to throw people off the scent . We know it was a double of Queen Elizabeth that did all the slayings because we have pictures of them and one has sloping shoulders. Do you honestly think these two people are the same???

So when was 'Harvey's' mastoidectomy? Did they really perform it on a 6 year old boy in case one day many years later he may be dug up from his grave...? Absolutely barking mad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In future could you please clarify who you are all talking about? It gets a little confusing when you talk of two Oswalds and then refer to them as HIM. Freudian slip... Just noticed that the signature links you have also refer to ONE Lee Harvey Oswald "Oswald received "a full-time salary for agent work for doing CIA operational work" “Lee Harvey Oswald was a contract employee of the CIA and the FBI.” But which LHO are we talking about here? The links refer to the one and only LHO, but you say they were two people, yet still refer to him as an individual. Come on Jim, it's getting sloppy now.

Why are you referring to "Oswald" in the singular? Which Oswald was CIA? I thought they were 'both' the product of a CIA plot to facilitate a defection by switching "Hungarian born Harvey" (and therefore obviously fluent in Russian!) with southern boy Lee, who spoke no Russian. I thought that was the whole point!! So which Oswald are you referring to?

"Watch them now all scream about how much bigger 'Lee' was..." (two posts up) So predictable Jim. And then, without a hint of self irony... "It would be one thing if these xxxx discrepancies were indicated by casual observers..." Precisely! And that's why we get cross, because the whole H&L LN story is built on observations by casual observers. And you have now confirmed that you too see a problem with that. Only when the distorted testimony fits your preconceived narrative do these "casual observers" then become star witnesses! Why does a height discrepancy have any bearing on the glaringly obvious fact that 'their' faces are identical? If they are not why are you referring us to a scientific pixel study to determine the difference? I now predict that cool dude DJ will try and tell us 'they' didn't look like each other at all. (It's happened before...several times!) H&L = LN

"If I had to clump the photos in two different piles, it looks to me like photos 1, 2, 3, 9 and 13 are the same individual, and photos 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12 are the same individual." So are you now officially declaring that the ONLY way you can tell these two individuals apart is by Pixel Counting Biometrics? To the casual observer then they must have looked identical. If not, why the need for such an in depth pixel study? So there we have it. Finally. The official admission comes out: that the two unrelated boys picked out at 13 for some unspecified espionage plot coincidentally turned out to be so identical as adults (mastoidectomy scar included!) that the only way you can tell them apart is by using some sophisticated photo analysis. Watch them now all scream about how much bigger 'Lee' was, and how is sloping shoulders are a give away, and how much thinner 'Harvey's' neck was...No they looked nothing like each other... You do realise that people read ALL the pages Jim, not just the one we are presently on, but all the others too. They can see your cut and paste dumps when you're cornered because you've been careless and reckless with them this time. The only thing you have is how identical 'they' looked. I agree. Lee Harvey Oswald IS almost identical to Lee Harvey Oswald. Because there was just the one of them, that's why! Now let me tell you this story about a pig...

Jeremy, that was sublime. You always know when Hargrove is rattled because he does the info dump shuffle. And this in response to a post ridiculing their habit of lengthy info dumps when they are cornered. They can't stop themselves! Armstrong is sat reading this now, pulling his hair out, and wondering why his runner boys haven't switched to Taiwan yet. It's not been mentioned for over 20 pages now, whereas the school records have been overplayed... "TAIWAN you imbeciles!" He's now screaming at the screen! "Info dump covering EVERYTHING and then move to Taiwan. I'm disappointed in you Jimbo: you're losing it!" Because Hargrove normally knows how to play ball, how to change the pace, to spread the game out, to move the ball from one wing to the other, to play it up-field and swing it about so the opposition doesn't know where he'll be popping up next. He never scores a goal. That's not his intention. He just wants to wear the other team out so that they don't score any. But he's getting old. And the slick artful passes of yesteryear are now just a big hoof down the pitch hoping it will do some good. It's nothing more than a sophisticated LN machine with the ultimate intent of highlighting Oswald's guilt. It is an extremely dishonest version of DVP...that makes money!

Yes, I had one who once went to Stripling too. He says that the FBI never came to the school. Is he a l.i.a.r? He knows all about my antipathy to the H&L story and he was keen to help me with it. He categorically states that not one law enforcement officer of any kind entered the building that day. Because that destroys the H&L narrative I have to believe him. Alas, in the real world us anti H&L folk don't enjoy the fortuitous coincidence of having a key researcher who was also a long term friend of a key witness that destroys your narrative. You wouldn't accept it anyway, and rightly so. If by pure coincidence Greg had had a long term friendship with a 'witness' somehow involved in the H&L tale, and that that witness knew all about Greg's opposition to it, would you accept his testimony if it didn't fit with your theory? Would you not see a conflict of interest?

Well said Sandy! Though, in the above scenario you've omitted being best friends with the researcher's collaborator. Did you miss that bit out on purpose? Jack White, Armstrong's helper (and at times inspiration) was a personal friend of Kudlaty, he'd known him for "over 50 years" and could personally, and wholeheartedly, "vouch for his integrity". Do you really not see a blatant conflict of interest here?

Ha ha ha...Hargrove reprimanding Tracy for not debating the issues by refusing to debate the issue!! Unbelievable! This is why we call it a cult. There's no guidance, lessons, psalms, or instructions in the Holy Book (H&L) on the exhumation, so he simply refuses to enter into a discussion. This is their Achilles heel, and Hargrove knows it. Expect a huge info dump very soon. You've been goading Tracy for twenty pages to debate the issues "HERE" and when he finally raises the issue of the exhumation (one which COMPLETELY blows H&L out of the water) and your lack of response to that, you run away or post a link to another site instead. Pot. Kettle. Black. Have you even the slightest iota of how embarrassing all this is for you? For the fortieth time now you have reprimanded Tracy for referring us all to Greg's links, which debunk H&L in excruciating detail, but you have no problem linking us all to Armstrong's H&L on almost EVERY post!!! "Mr. Parnell, as always, wants to change the subject, this time by discussing the mastoidectomy/exhumation..." But you asked him to debate the issues "HERE"!!! Here's an issue: debate it! "When you have done that, we can talk about the exhumation again." Oh, so we can only ask questions you think you are capable of answering. YOU will decide whether we discuss the exhumation; and only if we pass the test in debating the things YOU want us to debate. Doesn't work like that. You have the theory. It is beholden on you to explain it. An issue has been raised that if accepted relegates the entire H&L as utterly impossible. I can understand why you don't want to go there, but we do. Independent minded readers can make their own minds up as to why, all of a sudden, you no longer want to discuss the issues we raise. Run away! Run away!!

I know, and the less we intervene the funnier it gets! Watch as they disappear down the kitchen sink with all the other odd-balls and cranks that love to enhance their sad little lives with a puffed up sense of self importance and chronic delusions of grandeur. See how every post is now directed to the "detractors"? It used to be "non-believers", a phrase constantly used by cults to describe fallen members, but even they could see the creepy similarity. Let them play. Without us responding they have NO purpose.

And finally, we run out of steam, can't answer the points raised, so resort to insults and lies. I did write you a very pithy angry letter once David, in reply to your toxic provocation, though there was no mention of a death threat. The British police take that kind of thing very seriously and you would certainly be arrested for doing so. So, no death threats, just a few lines to tell you what a tawdry, vicious little man you are. And also you are a sexist barefaced xxxx! So, still no answers to offer? Where was 'Lee' living while Harvey was in Russia? Are you now going to make some more insulting remarks about my family? Even Dawn Meredith pulled you up for that. Far from being angry Mr Gullible, I am at the moment ecstatic. At 59 I have just released my first album to critical acclaim. It's a stonker! Have fun with your sloping shoulders big boy!

You've posted nothing more than Jim has already done, about 13 times! Just repeating hearsay ad nauseam doesn't make you right. All you have on Bolton Ford is one individual, Sewell, several years later saying that this customer wrote down the name Lee Oswald. Subsequent proof emerged that Sewell was mistaken and only the word Oswald appeared on the document, thus revealing his lack of credibility as a witness. Is that unfair of me? To call him an unreliable witness? What height did he say 'Lee' was? Was he right or wrong on that? So he gor the wrong name and he gave the wrong description...yet he is your ONLY witness on this!!! Bernie expects there to be a yearbook complete with dated photos of Lee and Sturgis and Ruby. This is typical H&L methodology. As you will now be aware, they have absolutely NO proof whatsoever of where 'Lee' was living during 'Harvey's' defection: mainly because he doesn't exist!. Not unreasonably we repeatedly ask this question and this is their response (see above). We ask for a morsel - they accuse us of wanting it ALL! Don't tell us that this information is unavailable because of how closely managed he was, and that his whereabouts were a strict secret. You have him buying trucks using his own name for Christ's sake!!! If he were allowed to do that he must have been witnessed doing other things. Show us the PROOF. Not tittle tattle from disenfranchised losers!

Where did you say that Sandy? Jim mentioned it only a few posts ago and so did David. Ok, you win, YOU may have never said that, but Armstrong's H&L does. You are defending H&L ergo.... So where do you think 'Lee' was Sandy? You obviously disagree with Armstrong's narrative on this episode, or why distance yourself rom my comment? Good, that shows independent thought. Given that I've incorrectly associated you with the safe house theory maybe you'd like to share your disagreement with Armstrong and proffer your own explanation to where he was while 'Harvey' was in Russia. On the Bolton Ford incident...YES Sandy, as you so correctly say, he DIDN'T leave his full name. He left only ONE name. Oswald. And that's all you've got!, despite Jim's desperate attempt to con us into thinking he also gave the name Lee. So that's another disagreement you have with H&L... Sandy...are you secretly working for us? PS that quote box should be my quote not Sandy's...don't know how that happened.

Oh deary me, let me take you by the hand Sandy... The man you are referring to at Bolton Ford was clearly active in the Democratic Friends of Cuba, or why else would he be buying trucks using 'his' and that organisation's name? Sandy Larsen is 100% convinced that the DFoC was not at ALL compromised by Russian intelligence, it would have been TOTALLY ruled out that amongst this group there was a Castro agent (or even supporter) who could pass on this information. It is precisely the kind of information that would have been of interest to the Russians anyway, regardless of your fantasy narrative. Why were his handlers so recklessly confident in taking 'Lee' out of his safe house to publically buy trucks for an organisation extremely hostile to Cuba and the USSR? Did 'Lee's' handlers also know for DEFINITE that within DFoC there were no infiltrators and that his real identity and mission would therefore never be uncovered, bearing in mind that the KGB would have been doing everything they could to discover who 'their' Oswald really was? How did they know for definite his identity wouldn't be blown? Not by Bolton Ford employees but by elements within the organisation he was buying trucks for!!! Now do you get it Sandy? They didn't; and that's why YOU say 'he' was (conveniently) kept in a safe house far from curious eyes! That way there would be NO chance that his identity would be compromised. And Sandy can't understand...why anyone would connect Lee Harvey Oswald with Lee Harvey Oswald! I mean, as if there were two Oswalds floating about. Who would possibly have thought that? It's a preposterous idea that the Russians may connect anti Castro LHO with pro Soviet LHO...Preposterous and impossible. So off you go 'Lee' and get me some trucks. Make sure you use your real name though, because there's no such thing as Russian intelligence and you cannot POSSIBLY be found out. Then when you've done that we must put you back in the safe house so as not to compromise your identity! Unbelievably childish...

"In late 1960 CIA asset Marita Lorenz was in a Miami CIA safehouse with members of her group and met LEE Harvey Oswald for the first time. The HSCA interviewed her and asked about her first meeting with Oswald:" Why was he in a safe house? What reason did they keep him there? So he wouldn't be spotted and his cover blown? Except when his handlers needed him to buy some trucks and INSISTED he use his own name.... ha ha ha!! Please grow up!