Jump to content
The Education Forum

For Chris Newton, Larry Hancock, Tracy Parnell, and other Critically-Minded Members


Recommended Posts

On 3/25/2018 at 3:35 AM, Bernie Laverick said:
On 3/24/2018 at 3:56 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

It's a theory, Bernie. A theory always include conjecture.  If it didn't, it would be a fact and not a theory.

Deal with it.

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?

 

Bernie,

Scientific theory is not the same thing as theory. A scientific theory has to do with natural phenomena and must be observable and repeatable. The theories we deal with here are largely related more with historicity and typically cannot be observed or repeated.

You say there is no conjecture in theory. I say that if there were no conjecture, the theory would be a fact. Look at this definition of theory:

 

theory
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]

noun, plural theories.

  1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:
    Einstein's theory of relativity.
    Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
     
  2. a proposed explanation whose status is still CONJECTURAL and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
    Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.
    Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
     
  3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject:
    number theory

Source:  http://www.dictionary.com/browse/theory

 


Definition #1 is the definition of scientific theory. Definition #2 is the definition of non-scientific theory. Notice that it uses the word "conjecture".

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

38 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Okay, here are the propositions made in my theory:  A CIA asset impersonating Oswald went by car to Mexico City. Another CIA asset impersonating someone else drove the car. There may have been more impersonators riding in the car.

As of now that is a theory... a "set of propositions," as you put it. According to you, it will continue to be a theory till disproved. Can you disprove it Bernie?

 

"Can you disprove it Bernie?"

Yes. But you would never listen. 

Propositions need some evidence to back them up.

You have NONE!

Grow up....

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Propositions need some evidence to back them up.

You have NONE!

 

What are you talking about? I have support for everything I said.

 

Supporting Evidence for the Propositions of My Theory:

  1. A CIA asset impersonating Oswald went by car to Mexico City.

    Evidence for Car Trip: There was early documented evidence of the trip taking place by car.
    Evidence for Impersonator:  There is no evidence that Oswald himself was in MC. No photos, faked telephone calls.
    Evidence for CIA Involvement:  Mountain of evidence that Oswald was a CIA agent. The involvement of other CIA assets (e.g. Alvarado).
     
  2. Another CIA asset impersonating someone else drove the car.

    Evidence for a Driver:  Oswald didn't drive.
    Evidence for Driver being a CIA Asset:  The CIA hired the driver. Therefore he's a CIA asset.
    Evidence for Driver being an Impersonator:  CIA agents don't reveal their true identities in covert activities.
     
  3. There may have been more impersonators riding in the car.

    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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

What are you talking about? I have support for everything I said.

 

Supporting Evidence for the Propositions of My Theory:

  1. A CIA asset impersonating Oswald went by car to Mexico City.

    Evidence for Car Trip: There was early documented evidence of the trip taking place by car.
    Evidence for Impersonator:  There is no evidence that Oswald himself was in MC. No photos, faked telephone calls.
    Evidence for CIA Involvement:  Mountain of evidence that Oswald was a CIA agent. The involvement of other CIA assets (e.g. Alvarado).
     
  2. Another CIA asset impersonating someone else drove the car.

    Evidence for a Driver:  Oswald didn't drive.
    Evidence for Driver being a CIA Asset:  The CIA hired the driver. Therefore he's a CIA asset.
    Evidence for Driver being an Impersonator:  CIA agents don't reveal their true identities in covert activities.
     
  3. There may have been more impersonators riding in the car.

    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.

 

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Do Jim and David believe there were multiple imposters in the car drive to Mexico? Or is Sandy skiing off piste here?

What seems to be happening is someone who NEVER offers evidence within their posts is DEMANDING IT.

Go to the man's profile page and take a quick look at this newest round of posts....  which started with this one:

15 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

This is from March 8....

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...

How is that even remotely close to following the rules about not attacking the poster but deal with the topic?

It starts, simply enough, with something like this and then as he becomes more and more demanding of EVIDENCE - which he rarely if ever offers himself - it denigrates into the Lord of the Flies....   and how does he finish this pithy and insightful post?

Now wallow in your own lake of super-puffed up self importance as a highly intelligent smart guy who has just outfoxed the most devilish intelligence service there has ever been. 
Childish little boys...

One could ask this poster - WHY?....  you have yet to show any true interest in the information offered here, WHY are you all of a sudden so interested in SANDY's theory?

You ask questions for which answers are at best elusive at worst - gone.  And then get indignant when not answered or not to your satisfaction...

What do YOU think happened and why... what supporting evidence do YOU offer in support of YOUR conclusion...  or have you accepted someone else's work and conclusions... also good... but how about STARTING THERE ?? 

----------------------------------------

Here...  I'll get us started...   Here are some applicable docs from the hundreds of reports and thousands of pages I've been thru....  If the evidence needed to him to have arrived by AUTO, the evidence would have been created to say so....  HARVEY CASH bought them enough time to decide how to proceed.

FBI report which mentions MAYDON telling Mexican Newspapers "believes Oswald on Sept 26 last was traveling with two women and man in automobile."

 

5ab9642ea8c7a_63-12-02FBImexifile105-3702NARA124-10230-10470MexiINS-MaydonorChapastateOswaldenteredMexicowith2womenand1maninAUTOp1.thumb.jpg.357b44c04ad0532e0473a138845369d4.jpg

This is the stamp of Helio Maydon - the inspector who forgets to record all the important info at the time of the man's entrance...

5ab96457bbd36_63-09-26FM-8stampOswaldentersMexico-MaydononSept26.jpg.750ac0680c125d0ba262dcb6a3aa9aa3.jpg

 

This is the FBI report which identifies MAYDON
....followed by the report identifying the items he forgot

When you take the time to understand what I&NS consul HARVEY CASH did with this info, as I've posted, you start to see the plan give itself the time to evolve...  despite having the info as offered...  the records from those dates were "borrowed" from all 4 bus lines...  

                       side note:   this CIA chrono doc about mexico includes this tidbit about ANAHUAC....  the bus line the FBI also says he takes to Mexico...
                                            followed by the report stating all 4 bus lines are negative for Oswald or alias....   yet LEE, HARVEY OSWALD signs the hotel registry and a number of other things...

                        5a207c43aefe2_63-11-26CIAMexicosummaryhasOswaldarrivingonAnahuacbuslineandleavingsameOct1.jpg.2a594a01113466cd48c128aa2bb65207.jpg

                        5ab966f8358a2_63-11-25FBI105-3702NARA124-10230-10432MexisourcescheckedallbuslinesOct1-2-3allNEGATIVEforOSWALDtravelp1Anahuacnowinvolved-highlighted.thumb.jpg.b4021ef42313ccc8ed22be192371ae12.jpg

 

 

5ab964c8a1100_64-04-17Maydonstampandthatheworked6am-2pm9-26-63supposedlyprovesOswaldentered.jpg.d6de6fa1de7dfd1e127f8c618e31246c.jpg

 

 

5ab964f78f75b_64-03-09CE2193WCD675p1-MaydonfailstorecordvitalinfoonOswaldcomingintoMexico.thumb.jpg.9ec88c9ceb87c7c41e553c1fc15e47b9.jpg

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:
14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

What are you talking about? I have support for everything I said.

 

Supporting Evidence for the Propositions of My Theory:

  1. A CIA asset impersonating Oswald went by car to Mexico City.

    Evidence for Car Trip: There was early documented evidence of the trip taking place by car.
    Evidence for Impersonator:  There is no evidence that Oswald himself was in MC. No photos, faked telephone calls.
    Evidence for CIA Involvement:  Mountain of evidence that Oswald was a CIA agent. The involvement of other CIA assets (e.g. Alvarado).
     
  2. Another CIA asset impersonating someone else drove the car.

    Evidence for a Driver:  Oswald didn't drive.
    Evidence for Driver being a CIA Asset:  The CIA hired the driver. Therefore he's a CIA asset.
    Evidence for Driver being an Impersonator:  CIA agents don't reveal their true identities in covert activities.
     
  3. There may have been more impersonators riding in the car.

    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.

 

 

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.

 

As I said, there is supporting evidence for every single proposition I laid out in my little theory. Just because you're ignorant of the evidence doesn't mean it ain't there.

Don't expect me to dig it up and prove it to you. Do your own damn work. Or at least treat knowledgeable researchers (like David Josephs) with some respect and maybe they'll help you out like they have me.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bernie Laverick said:

But David doesn't believe there was a "car full of imposters" do you David? So how come [David] isn't aware of your "supporting evidence. Is it because it doesn't exist?

 

Had you been paying attention, you'd know that David just gave me even more evidence of a a car trip. And I thanked him for it.

Sheesh!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I'd say EVIDENCE...  This was a news report citing what MAYDON... "Believes"....

See if you can find more info on either the Allen's or the BRILL's.   I posted a few docs on them as the only official man and woman in a car on Sept 26....  He supposedly leaves by driving on the 3rd....

The exit evidence is even more obviously a fraud that the journey down.

.----------------

As for what I believe or not.... BL likes to sow discord among others on subjects where once again he only offers incredulous amazement at a theory for which reading my work at K&K or on these forums would help immensely.  

16 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

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.

Unlike you sir, people have the ability to extrapolate a theory from a series of seemingly unconnected events...  

IF.... there was a car related to establishing Oswald was taken to Mexico by other conspirators then by default the occupants would be CIA related...  That is if you understand the Alvarado/Phillips connection and how that was handled within the Phase 1 Phase 2 planning and execution.

The only direct evidence is the FM-11 which says Auto.... All other evidence comes from the CIA and is backed by STATE in their back channel communication.

If you DON'T think it happened this way.... What version of events do you subscribe to and on which evidence do YOU rely?

The ongoing attacks for The sake of attacking needs to end, sir.  Sandy is looking at an angle... If he turns up things I've missed, great!  SAYING he took a car and proving so, as we know in this case, is very difficult.

4 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

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?

 

Not BELIEF.  Deduction.  

Oswald, from my POV, was in. Texas. The Visa procured by Gaudet and/or an asset Within the office itself.  Why does Alvarado say Sept 18? Gaudet's supposedly stayed only one day in Mexico after picking up his visa on the 17th.

I think Sandy is trying to discover who the small white man who they claimed was Oswald really was....   There's a part of me that feels every reference to Oswald was part of a story created and there May have never even been a person doing the things claimed... But it's just a theory at this point...   

Just like how I changed my mind about it being LEE on those buses impersonating Harvey....  My work gives Armstrong pause to rethink that conclusion...   

We evolve thru discovery and debate... Not by accusation and your insistence we provide you with info with which you're only going to argue anyway.

There is suggestion of a car trip... But like all the other evidence, it was part of a plan... Much easier to say you did something and show evidence then to actually do it and spin it afterward... No one is there to get caught up in the lie when its all made up....

How come you spend so much time tearing others work down rather than initiating and advancing your own ideas?  All you ever do is attack... And get indignant.

Surely there is a better way to discuss your POV on a subject other than attacking it.....

:up

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Not sure I'd say EVIDENCE...  This was a news report citing what MAYDON... "Believes"....

See if you can find more info on either the Allen's or the BRILL's.   I posted a few docs on them as the only official man and woman in a car on Sept 26....  He supposedly leaves by driving on the 3rd....

The exit evidence is even more obviously a fraud that the journey down.

.----------------

As for what I believe or not.... BL likes to sow discord among others on subjects where once again he only offers incredulous amazement at a theory for which reading my work at K&K or on these forums would help immensely.  

Unlike you sir, people have the ability to extrapolate a theory from a series of seemingly unconnected events...  

IF.... there was a car related to establishing Oswald was taken to Mexico by other conspirators then by default the occupants would be CIA related...  That is if you understand the Alvarado/Phillips connection and how that was handled within the Phase 1 Phase 2 planning and execution.

The only direct evidence is the FM-11 which says Auto.... All other evidence comes from the CIA and is backed by STATE in their back channel communication.

If you DON'T think it happened this way.... What version of events do you subscribe to and on which evidence do YOU rely?

The ongoing attacks for The sake of attacking needs to end, sir.  Sandy is looking at an angle... If he turns up things I've missed, great!  SAYING he took a car and proving so, as we know in this case, is very difficult.

Not BELIEF.  Deduction.  

Oswald, from my POV, was in. Texas. The Visa procured by Gaudet and/or an asset Within the office itself.  Why does Alvarado say Sept 18? Gaudet's supposedly stayed only one day in Mexico after picking up his visa on the 17th.

I think Sandy is trying to discover who the small white man who they claimed was Oswald really was....   There's a part of me that feels every reference to Oswald was part of a story created and there May have never even been a person doing the things claimed... But it's just a theory at this point...   

Just like how I changed my mind about it being LEE on those buses impersonating Harvey....  My work gives Armstrong pause to rethink that conclusion...   

We evolve thru discovery and debate... Not by accusation and your insistence we provide you with info with which you're only going to argue anyway.

There is suggestion of a car trip... But like all the other evidence, it was part of a plan... Much easier to say you did something and show evidence then to actually do it and spin it afterward... No one is there to get caught up in the lie when its all made up....

How come you spend so much time tearing others work down rather than initiating and advancing your own ideas?  All you ever do is attack... And get indignant.

Surely there is a better way to discuss your POV on a subject other than attacking it.....

:up

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

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie, I would like nothing better than to never be attacked or attack personally... discuss the theory and/or evidence... not the general state of the community - by which you are not exactly representative...  asking someone for the reasons behind their thoughts and then to attack THEM on it appears to have been your SOP all along....  I didn't fall off the truck and into this forum yesterday buddy...

Here is how you entered this thread:

================

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.

================

Why in the world would anyone bother taking the time to answer THAT?  But Sandy, being the bigger man, does anyway, despite my warnings... and you performed true to yourself in your dealings with him...:

==============

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!   (so throw in a jab, ask pointless questions for which you could care less other than making your big-brain point.... and then show off how little you perceive of the circumstances or situation...  that isn't a desire to LEARN Bernie... that's just abuse. - DJ)

 

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

================

THIS is how you respectfully ask for evidence to support a discussion?  And you wonder why you get different responses than other people?

:up

 

On 3/27/2018 at 6:38 AM, Bernie Laverick said:

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.

Sandy isn't selling anything... and therein lies the rub...  it appears in your life everything is either win/lose, sell it/say nothing....  I'm right, you're wrong.... even worse you present the - "since you can't explain it to me you can't explain it at all" argument with pride....  when in reality you've done what? the minimum in trying to get a handle on the massive amount of info just related to Mexico.

How much of the 6 chapters I wrote have you actually studied or investigated?  I took 2 years digging thru thousands of reports so people like you didn't have to... so you could come to a discussion with at least a basic understanding of what the FBI/CIA/I&NS/STATE/ONI/MID pulled off.

On 3/27/2018 at 6:38 AM, Bernie Laverick said:

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.

What did you ADD to Sandy's idea?   

Those who present conflicting evidence to the H&L concept do so to convince the opposite...  to refute the concept in total...  yet we see there are hundreds and hundreds of things they need to address....  the tooth situation is direct proof the man buried was not the man whose records the marine's offered...  kinda simple yet those who can't live in a world where H&L is true WILL NOT ACCEPT IT...  period.

And that's fine Bernie...  I truly could not care less what your conclusions about the JFK assassination are as I see how you go about questioning things and gathering your "evidence" to make a decision - if you even bother making a decision...  most of the time, like another member here, you simply come into a thread to argue the weight of air....  anything to be contrary....

As we've said a number of time, H&L is a starting point, not ending.  I believe I seriously debunked the trip aspect of the two men...  I'd go on to speculate that LEE was in FL at training camps.... and if we are to believe Lorenz, he was in that caravan.

Not the point here though....

On 3/27/2018 at 6:38 AM, Bernie Laverick said:

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?

US?  If you behaved with that level of interest and curiosity you could be part of US... but you don't as is evident from this thread....

If you think Oswald was in Mexico, it's not right to ask one question to your 50?  Why?  or if not, WHY?

You know my position.... but all we know of yours is that you get indignant when evidence doesn't meet your minimum requirements...  

On 3/27/2018 at 6:38 AM, Bernie Laverick said:

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.

You're forgotten Bernie...  Tracy has the chops to put his work and conclusions out there....  you don't need to be 100% correct, just sincere about what you conclude to garner respect here...   I don't agree with DVP but you can't fault the man his work.... 

Many, many people lurk as you've noticed.  You my friend are an active combatant here...  you back slap those who attack POVs with which you disagree regardless of their argument....  you just like to pick sides and create that WIN/LOSE scenario while so many of us are trying for WIN/WIN.

Tell us what you THINK from the work YOU'VE done... or ask a question...  a soap box cross examination... especially from you, is not why we come to discuss things here....  decide whether you want to learn or attack...

:up

================

So how about cutting the BS and tell us whether YOU agree with the theory, the idea, that as part of the Mexico plan, the CIA sent a car of people over the border, one of these people with a LEE, HARVEY OSWALD tourist visa  (again good for 15 days from arrival not 15 days from acquisition).... or was the person impersonating Oswald already in Mexico?  Maybe he was flown in the night before....

You see, we don't know... this is what we DO KNOW....  even the FBI's asset at GOBERNACION cannot find OSWALD in Nov, prior to the 22nd....

 

and some of the greatest sources of info, LITAMIL-9 & 7 confirms and reconfirms the man they are shown to be OSWALD was not at the embassy.

"Was again shown a photo of Oswald - NEVER SAW THE MAN"

5aba5ec7b3540_LITAMIL-9CIAassetwithinCubanEmbassyinMexicoCitysaysheneversawOswald.jpg.3ede49c0fc42566f4f755f641bd88adf.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bernie Laverick said:

You want to convince the public of your theories?

No Bernie... the "public" elected Trump...  I haven't the slightest interest in what the honey-boo-boo loving "public" is convinced.
I'd venture to guess that most could not point to Dallas on a world map.

People come HERE based on intellectual curiosity...  or in a few cases to just attack everything that eludes them.
What motivates you to drop in out of nowhere to ask leading and puffed up questions to then ridicule the ideas of someone else when answered...

So I guess the Golden Rule question is whether you'd appreciate your own style attacking something YOU presented here in the same manner as above...
When I ask YOU for evidence supporting anything you post... you freak out and hit me with all sorts of diffusion tactics - again like you do on this thread...

WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO ANSWER?.....  is your response....  which tells most of us here you don't have a POV because you simply don't know enough about the subject to have one...
Or the POV you do have is so unsupported by any evidence you dare not present it here   ???

Kinda like the MATH RULES thread....  As a math and finance major I figured I could get it.... and it still takes me hours of focused effort to understand what Chris sees in his head and explains the events as I've theorized... a 48fps film cut to size and re-filmed....  a wholesale adjustment of the data to make checking impossible...  we have the WEST survey work which would never have seen the light of day if the FBI and Shaneyfelt had their way...

==============

Despite the impossibility of it... there are those who still conclude that Oswald shot JFK... and no conspiracies happen in the good ole US of A. 

Not a matter of evidence but of staunch belief backed by the thinnest of connections...  even you don't see Oswald guilty... do you?

So how to proceed Bernie?  Sandy is a friend... I will come to the aid of a friend, always.  Especially when attacked for such baseless reasons as ridicule, and amazement.

So you tell us BL...

  1. IF a car is sent to Mexico to give the impression Oswald was with co-conspirators... who would YOU put in that car and why?
  2. Was Oswald in Mexico during this time period?
  3. Was ALVARADO a Phillips asset?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Not sure I'd say EVIDENCE...  This was a news report citing what MAYDON... "Believes"....


David,

It is hearsay evidence*. It isn't admissible in court, but it can certainly be used in formulating a theory. Which is what my argument with Bernie is all about. If a theory had only rock solid evidence and no conjecture, it wouldn't be a theory... it would be a fact.

 

*Though not strong evidence, given the "believes" qualifier. Nevertheless, even weak evidence is considered to be evidence.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...