The H&L "two schools at the same time" mystery

[Michael Cross]

19 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

My apologies. It's official. Sandy is a genius.

 

No clue if Sandy is a genius.  I just demonstrated that you were talking out of your arse.

[Bernie Laverick]

2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

I Bernie, I looked at your posting history in your profile, and it is you who are obsessed.

I also saw a few of your music videos, and I am still laughing... 😂

I'll put my songs against your 'scary' stories any day. The only thing scary about them is you thinking they are scary. Did you write them when you were six?

I'll leave you this review. Perhaps you'd like to show me a similar one for your, erm, stories....

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/26044/30-08-2017/catchy-folk-rock-with-a-socialist-edge

Say goodnight Gracy...

[Michael Clark]

4 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

I'll put my songs against your 'scary' stories any day. The only thing scary about them is you thinking they are scary. Did you write them when you were six?

I'll leave you this review. Perhaps you'd like to show me a similar one for your, erm, stories....

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/26044/30-08-2017/catchy-folk-rock-with-a-socialist-edge

Say goodnight Gracy...

For clarification, Sandy shared a cool story about how, as a teen,  he repaired a TV for the guy who invented the TV. Very cool story. Bernie ridiculed Sandy for sharing that story. He then insinuated that I stole somebody else's stories and shared them as my own in an EF thread that I opened, elsewhere in the forum, called "Scary Stories Thread".

Bernie's dirty shot at me: "Maybe you could copy this exchange and sell it off as one of your 'scary' stories...!"

My Scary Stories Thread...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23797-scary-stories-thread/

Bernie, I received a couple of accolades for one of my stories... right on the originating Jeep forum, to which I shared a link in my EF thread.

-"that was the most descriptive story i have ever read in my life!!!!

-"Lol thank you for the entertainment. I felt like i was there!"

-"... awesome story!

-"Wow that was a great read. Very well done made me feel like I was there."

 

 

Edited January 4, 2018 by Michael Clark

[Bernie Laverick]

8 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

For clarification, Sandy shared a cool story about how, as a teen,  he repaired a TV for the guy who invented the TV. Very cool story. Bernie ridiculed Sandy for sharing they story. He then insinuated that I stole somebody else's stories and shared them as my own in an EF thread that I opened, elsewhere in the forum, called "Scary Stories Thread.

Bernie's dirty shot at me: "Maybe you could copy this exchange and sell it off as one of your 'scary' stories...!"

My Scary Stories Thread...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23797-scary-stories-thread/

Bernie, I received a couple of accolades for one of my stories... right on the originating Jeep forum, to which I shared a link in my EF thread.

-"that was the most descriptive story i have ever read in my life!!!!

-"Lol thank you for the entertainment. I felt like i was there!"

-"... awesome story!

-"Wow that was a great read. Very well done made me feel like I was there."

 

 

I insinuated no such thing about stealing. If you were going to steal you would have stolen from a good writer.

My apologies for casting aspersions on your creative outlet. Just because it's not 'my thing' doesn't detract from its merit, and you're right, it was a cheap shot.

 

 

[Michael Clark]

14 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

I insinuated no such thing about stealing. If you were going to steal you would have stolen from a good writer.

My apologies for casting aspersions on your creative outlet. Just because it's not 'my thing' doesn't detract from its merit, and you're right, it was a cheap shot.

 

 

That is accepted and appreciated. Our relationship is reset. It is forgotten. I am not proud of having stooped low in an effort at retaliation.

Edited January 4, 2018 by Michael Clark

[Sandy Larsen]

10 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

My apologies for casting aspersions on your creative outlet. Just because it's not 'my thing' doesn't detract from its merit, and you're right, it was a cheap shot.

 

3 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

That is accepted and appreciated. Our relationship is reset. It is forgotten. I am not proud of having stopped low in an effort at retaliation.

 

Talk about cool stories... we have one right here. 

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

43 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

That is accepted and appreciated. Our relationship is reset. It is forgotten. I am not proud of having stooped low in an effort at retaliation.

Very glad to see this guys and kudos to both of you.

[Jim Hargrove]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

This is amazing. I had no idea that Jim Garrison suspected there were two Oswalds, at least not as early as their Marine Corps service and defection.

Jim H. or Jim D., do you know when the above was written?

It was written on or around November 14, 1968.  In a handwritten note on page one of the document shown below, Garrison asked Lou Ivon (his chief investigator) to get the whole thing retyped and distributed to "every member of the special team," which Ivon did as a formal memorandum dated November 14, 1968.

 

[Michael Walton]

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

It was written on or around November 14, 1968.  In a handwritten note on page one of the document shown below, Garrison asked Lou Ivon (his chief investigator) to get the whole thing retyped and distributed to "every member of the special team," which Ivon did as a formal memorandum dated November 14, 1968.

Jim HARGROVE, like I said above but which you seemed to ignore, Jim Garrison, bless his heart, was not the be all and end all of the JFK case. Yes, he tried Clay Shaw which was admirable of him and IMO very very brave because what he tried to do - to expose the assassination for what it really was - was greatly undermined by his own government. If you're not familiar with that story, look it up on KAK. But it doesn't mean that everything that came out of his mouth was 100% correct.

 

[Bernie Laverick]

Michael, in view of our reset relationship and withdrawal of hostilities maybe now would be a good time to give a brief reason why I think it is important to debunk and where possible disprove any theory we fear may be acting as a hindrance to further enlightenment. We quite happily come on here and tussle with LNs, not because it's fun, but because we believe that their narrative needs to be robustly countered. There is nothing wrong with that surely? Same with fringe theories that look seductive at first glance but fall to dust on closer inspection.

For example, I'm suspicious that there are gigantic gaping gaps in the story, like what became of 'Lee' after Nov 22nd 1963?

What became of his doppelganger mother?

Why was 'Lee' allowed, given this ultra top secret plot, to go out and buy trucks under his own name while 'Harvey' was in Russia?

How do we explain 'Lee's' known mastoid scar being found on 'Harvey' too?

When did it become apparent that the two unrelated boys looked almost identical? (So much so that much evidence for H&L is from witness testimony who say he looked like the man shot by Ruby)

Why are the H&L supporters confident that there isn't anything left to find about this story?

How can a plot that is so tightly sewn up with, according to Jim, nearly all evidence removed, destroyed, manipulated or tidied up, how could it include so many people in the know?

Why hasn't any H&L supporter seen fit to try and contact relatives or associates of the dozens of people who knew of H&L?

Why do they refuse to take this further than the JFK chat forums and not reach out to respectable alternative media, or anti establishment investigative journalists like John Pilger?

What new piece of information has emerged since the release of H&L that corroborates it in any way? This is the killer for me....

Wouldn't there be someone, somewhere, who went to school with 'Lee', or played in the same block, (someone OTHER than those named in the book) wouldn't they be even slightly interested in the JFK story? We come on here looking for answers, how strange that not one of the people who must have known 'Lee' has subsequently taken an interest in the JFK assassination and stumbled on this story. A story that they would be able to corroborate, thus boosting the credibility of H&L. As yet...no one! Think about it. How many must have known and interacted with the MO doppelganger. Of course, they wouldn't know she was the 'doppelganger' unless they subsequently developed an interest in the JFK story, which some of them would... surely? We have, why wouldn't they? Is it likely that everyone who know either 'Lee' or MO, that not one of them would eventually do some of their own digging and, just like us, more than likely find themselves on here. To which they would then go "EUREKA"! Twenty years after the publication and we are still waiting for just one person to come forward. 

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...?

You may choose to accept Jim's explanations Michael, and you may think that the above doesn't detract from the theory, and that is your right. But I hope you would accept it is also my right to keep on pushing those questions. It isn't bloody-mindedness and it isn't trolling. I simply don't believe that H&L holds any water and it tires me that it seems to permeate every angle of the JFK assassination but without telling us anything about what may have happened. I think that is a legitimate position to take. I would rather the atmosphere was more cordial. But EVERYONE who criticises H&L no matter how friendly WILL end up being abused, bullied and insulted. That some of us return fire is to our detriment, but the nastiness always originates from those aggressively pushing this diversion, because that's what I believe it is.

So Michael, it is not pig headedness on my part and I hope we can at least in future be civil with each other now you know that my intentions are legitimate.

Best regards, Bernie

[Michael Clark]

39 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Michael, in view of ...

....

...my intentions are legitimate.

Best regards, Bernie

Bernie,

I did a quick survey of your EF posting history.

in the last 6 years you have posted @400 times.

Of those 400 posts, 14 were NOT, at a glance, relaeted to the two Oswald problem.

Every other post ( nearly 400) just disrupts threads that explore the dual Oswald issue.

I have questions about the two Oswald problem.

None of your posts that I have read have been of any help in answering my questions. 

None of your posts show any interest in the JFKA. You are just interested in breaking-up this facet of the discussion.

I don't understand and I do not care why you obsess on obstructing the dual-Oswald discussion.

I just wish you would go away.

[Gene Kelly]

Kathy:

This thread has degraded to name calling and derogatory comments.  With all due respect, the posters in question add very little (imho) as far as useful information or insights (pro/con).  Its simply constant (almost obsessive) obstruction and ridicule of Armstrong's work and book.  Something was obviously fishy with the Oswald identities and family story ... so, why the virulent and persistent attack?   I occasionally come back to this thread, to see if I can learn anything new ... but all I ever see is silly name-calling and type-casting (i.e. "Team Hardly ... CT Community") and ad hominem attacks.  No substance, or convincing rebuttal.  Jim, Sandy and Michael try to explain the anomalies and challenges; but, its like saying the sky is blue, and getting a response: "how do you know;  how can you say that; what proof do you have? Have you gone mad?" 

I get the impression that -- if they persist (and succeed) -- then no one will participate and we will all go away.  What does that tell you?  

Gene  

[James DiEugenio]

I  agree Gene.

[Bernie Laverick]

3 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Bernie,

I did a quick survey of your EF posting history.

in the last 6 years you have posted @400 times.

Of those 400 posts, 14 were NOT, at a glance, relaeted to the two Oswald problem.

Every other post ( nearly 400) just disrupts threads that explore the dual Oswald issue.

I have questions about the two Oswald problem.

None of your posts that I have read have been of any help in answering my questions. 

None of your posts show any interest in the JFKA. You are just interested in breaking-up this facet of the discussion.

I don't understand and I do not care why you obsess on obstructing the dual-Oswald discussion.

I just wish you would go away.

Check Jim's statistics and you will see that he posts exclusively on H&L. What's wrong with that? Btw, my 400 posts over six years equates to just over one post a week. Hardly obsessive is it?  What's truly obsessive is your creepy survey!!!! That's the second time you have revealed doing research on me to try and use it as a 'tool'.

You say you have problems with H&L but never ever give any details. Why are you allowed to have a problem with it... but I'm not???

"I hope we can at least in future be civil with each other now you know that my intentions are legitimate." - Bernie

" I just wish you would go away." Michael

I'm going away Michael, I'm done with dealing with little men like you with issues. You win. Enjoy the celebration.

I spend far too much valuable time with borderline personality disorders on here...It just ain't worth it.

Me voy!

[Jim Hargrove]

6 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

Kathy:

This thread has degraded to name calling and derogatory comments.  With all due respect, the posters in question add very little (imho) as far as useful information or insights (pro/con).  Its simply constant (almost obsessive) obstruction and ridicule of Armstrong's work and book.  Something was obviously fishy with the Oswald identities and family story ... so, why the virulent and persistent attack?   I occasionally come back to this thread, to see if I can learn anything new ... but all I ever see is silly name-calling and type-casting (i.e. "Team Hardly ... CT Community") and ad hominem attacks.  No substance, or convincing rebuttal.  Jim, Sandy and Michael try to explain the anomalies and challenges; but, its like saying the sky is blue, and getting a response: "how do you know;  how can you say that; what proof do you have? Have you gone mad?" 

I get the impression that -- if they persist (and succeed) -- then no one will participate and we will all go away.  What does that tell you?  

Gene  

Thank you for saying that, Gene.  I have been studying and posting about Harvey and Lee for nearly twenty years now, and for all that time I’ve been surprised at the venom and hatred spread by what I’ll call the H&L critics.  Part of it makes me wonder if it isn’t an organized effort, but there may be other explanations.

A number of the H&L critics apparently do not understand even the basics of this case.  For example, Bernie Laverick recently took John’s list of people who knew both Harvey and Lee and mocked it by writing, “Ha ha ha!!! What a TOP SECRET plot this is.”  Michael Walton chimed in with his support. Neither Mr. Laverick nor Mr. Walton seem to understand what the project was for the majority of its existence.

The Harvey and Lee project was created to give a Russian-speaking youth the identity of an average American kid so that he could be sent to the Soviet Union, where his fluency in Russian would help him learn about Russian society.  Details of the operation only had to be hidden enough to avoid detection by operatives working for the USSR who might look into his background in the U.S.  It did not have to stand up to intense scrutiny.

But in the summer of 1963, all that changed.  The H&L project became entangled in the plot to kill JFK, and then the real scrutiny, and the cover-up, began.  And so as the plot and the subsequent “investigations” began to unfold, many of the people who knew both Harvey and Lee began dying.  David Ferrie, Ed Voebel, Guy Banister, Charles Murret, J.D. Tippit, and, perhaps, Roscoe White.  We can’t leave Ruby off the list, because he certainly knew both Oswalds.

Despite the critics lack of understanding of the basics of the case,  I’m still surprised by how much they clearly hate the H&L Menace®.  They seem to hate that more than the crime itself, or the cover-up.  Otoh, it can be useful to debate the evidence in this case, and so I'm going to continue to do that.