Bernie Laverick

What's so funny is that Mr Hargrove repeatedly taunts his critics to debate the evidence, "here and now. On this forum." He does this every few weeks despite there being 20 years of debate with millions of words on countless threads on this very forum.

Yet he cries pitifully when one of his deliberate mistruths is painfully drawn out after, reluctantly, he is MADE to discuss the facts. 🤣

And what fact have we all learned about the methods used by H$L supporters?

What most folk will see when they read this particular thread is how appallingly unprincipled your methods are. They will draw inevitable conclusions. 

They will also snigger at watching the humiliating responses; the evasions, the distractions, the mistruths, all topped off with a self pitying tantrum.

I guarantee that within a month one of them (or all) will, in another thread, simply repeat the lie that Ekdahl was an "intel assest". I guarantee it 

Any evidence? Of course not. This is H&L. No need for that. We state what we think may look 'suspicious' and then that gradually morphs into being a 'fact'.

And when it's constantly and comprehensively debunked, we just move on to yet another aspect of H$L. A few weeks down the line the same story is repeated (in this case Ekdahl) and we are all goaded into discussing it again. 

Anyway, on this occasion at least, you have been well and truly rumbled. We know this. And you know this. Hence the childlike hissy fit to distract attention.

This thread is like watching Wile. E. Coyote being steam rollered into the tarmac. If only these H$L fanatics had a milligram of self awareness. 🤪

13 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

ya been gone for a long time Bern, how much probation time you gotta do? If only I were a shrink!

Nah, you're mistaking me with my officially assigned doppelganger. You know, the one with sloping shoulders and a 13 metre head! 🤪

Everybody has one. Don't they? Well he is the one secretly posting under my name, no doubt in order to frame me for the upcoming assassination of Boris Johnson. 

Sound ridiculous? 

I've not been on here for a couple of years, mainly because it was becoming infested with H$L gibberish.

I've read through some of this thread, and the hundreds of others before it, and I find it creepy and incredibly odd that two years later on the same players are dumping the same regurgitated, but witheringly debunked, nonsense.

The H$L issue no longer interests me: likewise the theory that bloodletting as a cure for disease no longer interests me. It has been  embarrassingly blown apart countless times, including on this thread.

So what on earth could be the motive?

If it were a genuine attempt to uncover a truth they would have done something with it. But they haven't. Instead, they drop endless copy and paste articles, 99% of which have been posted, and demolished, hundreds of times over the last ten years. 

Of course, it is a member's right to post on whatever issue they wish, including repetitively copying and pasting articles that have been discussed, and disproved, at enormous length over a ten year period on this forum alone!

But I'm trying to imagine how terribly depressing and demoralising it must be to know that the fruit you are trying to sell is actually made of polystyrene. And try as you may, you just cannot sell a single apple; no matter how well you paint it.

Of course, the odd village idiot will be more than happy to chomp on a polystyrene banana, but the vast majority know what you're actually selling. Yet you stand at the stall all day and night and still try and sell it.

You know that it's all nonsense. And you know that we know that it's all nonsense. You also know that we know that you yourself knows it's nonsense. 

It's the oddest thing I've ever seen on the Internet. If only I were a psychologist....

Is this the same Jack white who interviewed Kudlaty to 'verify' the story of the FBI confiscating Oswald's school records?

And the same one who then, in order to bolster the veracity of that witness, inadvertently let slip that he had known him for "over fifty years"?

He refused to accept that there was a clear conflict of interest and that their (up until then) secret acquaintance seriously compromised the information gathered.

Finally he backtracked and claimed that it was his wife who knew Kudlaty, and Jack had only met him a few times throughout that 50 year acquaintance.

He was also a chem trail monger and moon landing denier, so using him to back up the H$L fantasy just underlines the rancid poverty of this utterly infantile theory. 

8 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

The image on the left is BEFORE the limo arrives and is taken from much further down Elm

Your ability to completely botch a simple viewing of a photo is remarkable...

Not a single thing youve posted here has been correct... as if you try harder to be wrong just so someone will notice you...

Pathatic that Conspiracy Realists have to deal with Conspiracy Fanatics so wheat and shaft dont mix...

Ha ha ha!! Comedy gold. David Josephs reprimanding someone for being a fanatic. Ha ha ha!!!!!

On ‎5‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 8:13 AM, Michael Walton said:

People do not stand with one leg down for extended periods of time - it's a very unnatural thing to do. We simply do not know or never will know who that is on the stoop - we can continue to go back and forth with 3D animations and low-res extreme blow ups of pixelly images to claim it's a man or woman, Oswald or a female employee. But there is simply not enough hard evidence to prove that it's Oswald up there.

And no one seems to ask themselves the significant question because if they do, it will put doubt in their mind.  That question is:

If the plan was to murder Kennedy and set up Oswald to be the patsy, WHY would they allow their patsy to be out there during  these critical moments, risking the whole conspiracy? The planners knew that there was going to be cameras outside during the parade.  They most certainly wouldn't want the person they had set up to take the blame for the murder to be anywhere NEAR these cameras.

Of course, Andrej, Bart and John will totally ignore this because you DO have to take this into consideration, but instead they prefer to just ignore it and go on with their conspiracy belief that it's Oswald up there seconds after the shooting.

Hi Michael, hope you're well buddy. You and I have joined forces a couple of times on here, notably in criticising H&L and other wild far out wacky ideas. But I'm surprised at your stance here over PM as I personally think it is potentially the most exciting development of the last 50 odd years. There has been some outstanding work done on this by those who, in other threads and issues, like you and I, criticise the obvious ridiculous red-herring distractions that infest the JFK community. Also, this is NOT just about photographic evidence. There is an infamous thread on here started by Bill Kelly but dominated by Sean Murphy's masterful teasing out of the facts leading up to that point. Since then ROKC, and Bart and Adrej in particular, have made even more headway.

I understand your main contention. In reality it is your only contention. (That is, the paragraph in bold above). But there are many theories as to how Oswald ended up as the one and only patsy, and even more as to when. If this IS Oswald, then logic dictates that the plotters did not pre plan his guilt, and that another outcome was originally desired. Hence the utterly ridiculous and tortuous public transport 'escape' scenario.  You may ask, if your scenario is correct, why did they allow him to leave the building on his own in the first place to go God knows where and talk to God knows who? If he was the long term pre planned patsy why wasn't he 'dealt with' at TSBD?

It isn't as certain as you think that Oswald was being set up months before the assassination. 'Sheep dipping' someone to better smear their characters for some future espionage activity doesn't necessarily mean that that activity is going to be an assassination. We don't have categoric proof that he was the pre determined patsy and therefore that doesn't preclude him being somewhere he subsequently 'shouldn't have been' for the LN theory to work.

I believe it was a rushed job to tie it down to Oswald, and him alone, to make the best of what they had, and then try their best to fit all those hundreds of loose square pegs into the hundreds of empty round holes. They're still doing it now. Here's a question then Michael. Where WAS Oswald in your opinion? Bearing in mind that if you say anywhere OTHER than the sniper's window... your same rule applies. "Why was he allowed to be there when he was supposed to be at the sniper's window?"

He had to be somewhere for God's sake! And unless you believe him to be the LN at the window (which you don't) logic says he must have been somewhere else.

I haven't seen a more in depth explanation for where that place may have been other than the PM research.

Best wishes buddy

1 hour ago, Bart Kamp said:

Gene Kelley "You would believe and trust a Russian biochemist who came out after 50 years over an American researcher? "   That is about the strangest and above all most biased sentence I have come across here. Not sure you win a price though......

Yep, that jumped straight out at me too, Bart. What? A Russian's word? Over an AMERICAN'S? Poppycock! Don't listen to him. He's probably a baby-eating commie like all the rest!

The level of debate on this forum has gone beyond infantile...

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.....

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

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?

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?

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....

11 hours ago, 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?

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!

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.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

There was evidence of travel by car and travel by bus. Your work has shown that the evidence for bus travel was fabricated. So that leaves only the evidence of travel by car.

So I accept travel by car being the most likely means of travel.

Oswald couldn't drive. Assuming the plotters knew this, they would probably want his impostor to be a passenger. Which means there was also a driver. So there we have two impostors in the car. Possibly more.

And so we have a "car full of impostors, so to speak." Making an evidence trail for the FBI to find.

 

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.

31 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Care to cite any EVIDENCE for your claim that Ed Voebel and LEE Harvey Oswald

Prove it!

Cite any EVIDENCE at all for your claim that Ed Voebel and LEE Harvey Oswald conspired to fake evidence of a missing tooth in the classroom photo Ed took.  Tell us how they did this so that Ed Voebel could commit perjury about the missing tooth before the Warren Commission in 1964. Did they also pay off Aunt Lillian to pay a dental bill for Lee? Tell us how they managed to fake Marine Corps dental records in 1958. Do you also think Ed Voebel wrote the prosthesis failed notation on Oswald's Marine records?  Clever fellow, that Voebel!  No wonder he died so young at the Ochnser Clinic.  Just too smart for his own good, eh?

Your desperation to come up with an explanation--any explanation--is quite obvious.

"Prove it!"

Don't have to...it's up to you to prove that that didn't happen.

You're the ones telling the story so the onus is on you to nail it. You haven't! It's your ball, it's your game and it's your theory. It's not our fault that there are multiple alternative explanations, al of which are infinitely more feasible, that you can't disprove happened. 

Once again another "indisputable" piece of 'evidence' crumbles into the psychotic dust from which it emerged.

52 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Greg Parker said:

 

The last wisdom tooth (a molar) errupts between the age of 17 and 25.

But of course, this is coming from exerts in the field so we should ignore them and listen to the man in the hat. Or at least that is what he will claim based on past performance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_tooth

 

Wiki? Everyone knows it's a CIA front. That's why they have planted this piece of information to put everyone off the scent. It nearly worked too. Fortunately we have folk on here who can see through all the deception and catch them out. Three cheers for H&L.

Let's see what madness accrues from this latest humiliation...

Knowing "more than anybody else", by definition, makes you "ultra knowledgeable". No mischaracterisation there. 

"We Must believe you" because you have just declared yourself "more knowledgeable than anybody else". You are the self -declared 'go-to' man on this. The whole point of stressing to anyone who will listen how knowledgeable you are on this subject is a cheap way of claiming some high ground; that is, the high ground you can't occupy with the evidence. It's a pathetic attempt to claim some sort of superiority on the subject, which, in your mind, would mean you are less likely to be wrong than others who know much less. Including a military dentist!

This is how much confidence you lack in the argument at hand. It's such a give away! You have to bolster this story by ramming the credentials of your supposed superior knowledge and intelligence down our throats, as if that makes up for the gigantic deficit in the whole saga. It's like saying... "look, I know there's jack xxxx to go on, but trust me when I say I'm right because on this subject I'm more knowledgeable than anybody else and my superior intelligence (which at the top .2% almost certainly makes me cleverer than anyone else here) gives me a free ride and you lot should just listen and not criticise".

You cannot reason with such delusion...

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

That is what I wrote to Tom Neal correcting his earlier mischaracterization of what I'd said. And it means the very same thing (in context) as what I originally wrote.

What you wrote was a gross mischaracterization of what I'd written both times.

 

 

I copied and pasted YOUR words!!!!

"My point in saying that was that I understand this issue more than anybody else posting in this thread. And that that does give me some level of authority"

Did you write that sentence? If yes then I have mischaracterised NOTHING.

I've just held a mirror up to your insufferable arrogance and you clearly don't like the reflection. Not my fault. Deal with it!

49 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The only study I've ever seen statistically examining photos of "Lee Harvey Oswald" in fine detail is here:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?14916-Pixel-Counting-Biometric-Comparison-of-Oswald-photos

The attorney who used the pixel counting software to make a series of facial measurements concluded that "there is some evidence that there is more than one individual here."

Then they must have looked almost identical.

Do you agree?

NO!!! You actually wrote..."My point in saying that was that I understand this issue more than anybody else posting in this thread. And that that does give me some level of authority"....That was copy and pasted from just two posts up.

Please apologise for deliberately misleading forum members.

And you did say that Tom's dentists was wrong. And you should know, being a self appointed authority on the mater. And you have stated that you have the highest IQ on this forum...presumably that too gives you more authority.

Keep digging Sandy.

Looking forward to the apology....

I understand this issue more than anybody else posting in this thread. And that that does give me some level of authority. - Sandy Larsen

Says it all. You can't argue against this kind of pig-headed arrogance. Because Sandy has declared himself ultra knowledgeable he has also decided that we must also accept his self given  authority. He says he knows more than anyone else on this thread about the subject in hand, so we MUST believe him and listen to the one and only voice on this. That's what Sandy is thinking, so we should follow the clever man's lead and listen to what he has to teach us.

I bet you're real excited aren't you Sandy? One of the conspiracy big boys, at last! You're right Sandy. There are two dental records. One is for Harvey and the other is for Lee. You've done it. You've cracked the case. H&L definitely existed because Sandy, who has more authority and intelligence than anyone on this forum, (according to him) says so, so I'm doing the decent thing and conceding EVERY point. 

You can't argue with this level psychotic delusion.

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

This will be the third time I note something like this that has popped up here of late:

Bernie: This forum has nothing to do with the JFK assassination and everything to do with slightly disturbed and possibly psychotic middle aged males.

I really do not understand these kinds of cheap, personal smears.  Sandy, from what I can see, has always been an aboveboard, honest and polite person.  Maybe its because of where he lives. But he really does not act like he is from New York City.  So how does he merit this kind of insinuation, that he is a possible "psychotic"?

I really do hope the mods intercede here.  This is really over the top.   Sandy is a valuable poster here.  I appreciate almost all of what he says.  I hope he does not think twice about frequenting EF over this kind of crap.

Funny that Jim, I don't recall you intervening when I was called "vermin" and when my wife and daughter were disgustingly used as a weapon to attack me. Funny that you only see this as being a one way street. This must be the tenth time you have made a short post knocking those who criticise H&L, but we never hear YOUR opinion on the subject.

Do you believe those photos show two separate individuals? If not then the entire H&L story has to go out of the window. How can you not see this? 

If you think they ARE two different people then you have to go ALL the way down the rabbit hole and swallow the rest. You can't just agree with some of it. Either there were two Oswalds as per JA, or there weren't; there is no middle ground. Shame you never feel brave enough to nail your colours to the mast and openly come out and tell us where you stand. Simply poking a stick at its critics is a bit cowardly I think...

We're not here to 'appreciate' other posters we're here to get to the truth. I can only assume that your appreciation is due to what Sandy says and the theory he promotes. Fine, so he has convinced you that there were two unrelated boys chosen as 11yr olds (along with two separate mothers) for an unspecified future espionage plot and twelve years later they ended up looking almost identical, mastoid scar included. Identical enough that H&L's own witnesses were adamant that it was the same man shot by Ruby, and that they need a biometric test to tell them apart! You really believe that? Seriously Jim? You too?

What definitive proof would it take to convince you that it didn't happen? And when that definitive proof turns up (like the autopsy report for instance), would you not feel that an awful lot of time has been deliberately wasted splitting the research community by chasing this well placed re herring here there and everywhere?

Why would you "appreciate" that?

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I never said the two Oswalds look nothing like each other. I said that there wasn't a strong resemblance. And the context of that was that I could compare them side by side.

Had I seen one of the Oswalds one day, and then shown a photo of the other on another day, I may well have wondered if they were not the same person.

There certainly is some resemblance.

 

Ha ha ha!!! What a joke. It took a biometric test to sort them out and you don't even think there is a strong resemblance. Ha ha ha!!!

Scientific-Sandy bolsters up this stupidity and informs us that by using his self-declared superior intelligence he also came to the same 'independent' conclusion. Well who would have thought that???

"There certainly is some resemblance." Jesus Christ, is there any end to this madness. YOUR OWN witnesses says they looked identical!! These are the very people you have built this silly little web from, the ones you ram down our throats as proof that the two characters existed. They ALL go a lot further than just saying there was just "some resemblance" though don't they Sandy? Wouldn't "some resemblance" include at least another one million people nationwide...?

How have you built this fantasy based on witness testimony declaring the subject showed only "some resemblance" to the accused assassin? People came forward after the event and after they had seen LHO on their TVs and swore that that was the same person they had interacted with. Without hesitation. Are you now saying that these witnesses were mistaken? Are you now saying they came forward because they remembered only "some resemblance" of a person they saw a few years previously? 

At last, we can now discount all the witness testimony of H&L story because Sandy, the new H&L Golden Boy (and hotly tipped to win the JA sycophant of the year award) has decided that these witnesses must have been wrong. They said he was the same man shot by Ruby. But Sandy says that can't be true because they weren't the same, they just had some "some resemblance", so the witnesses must have been mistaken... (that is... very witnesses he relies on to make him and others who promote it feel super important about themselves and how they have cracked the most devilishly intricate plot of the century). 

This forum has nothing to do with the JFK assassination and everything to do with slightly disturbed and possibly psychotic middle aged males.

The Ed forum used to be THE place to come and be informed about new developments with cutting edge research from highly respected individuals. Now it has just become a playground for social outliers and exotically odd individuals who have trashed the spirit of enlightenment and learning and replaced it with aggressively-driven tin foil hat high school conspiracy theories.

When they can't even agree with themselves about whether H&L were almost identical, had a strong resemblance,  just some resemblance, or - as has seriously been suggested before by some of the H&L crowd - had "NO" resemblance, we can know that this is a sophisticated diversion project intent on tying down genuine researchers  in tar and treacle to deliberately slow down their progress.

LNs do this all the time.

4 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

On the Deep Politics Forum a few years ago, a Dallas attorney named Drew Phipps, an H&L skeptic, used pixel counting software to measure various facial distance ratios of more than a dozen pictures of "Lee Harvey Oswald."  Mr. Phipps wrote, "The ratios I will use are: “pupil-to-pupil / width of eye” (called P/W hereafter), “pupil-to-pupil / length of nose” (called P/N hereafter), “pupil-to-pupil / nose-to-top-lip” (called P/L hereafter) and “pupil-to-pupil / earlobe-to-earlobe” (called P/E hereafter). The use of ratios (instead of actual measurements) will make it unnecessary to know more about the distance from lens to face, or the type of camera, etc., since the proportions of the face of the same person should stay the same regardless of those other factors."

His conclusion was as follows:

Visual Conclusions: Unless there is something terribly wrong with my methodology, (or my spreadsheet skills), or the photos are simply too low resolution for a significant biometric comparison, there is some evidence that there is more than one individual here. 

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.

I realize this is not the same narrative as "Harvey and Lee". It is still my opinion that it is far more likely that the paper trail of discrepancies surrounding Oswald is the result of deliberate tampering with his records (in an attempt to catch a mole, or deceive a communist spy organization). But the biometric discrepancies are starting to make me wonder. 

The full thread can be read here:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?14916-Pixel-Counting-Biometric-Comparison-of-Oswald-photos

So you admit that it takes this level of sophisticated biometric analysis to be able to tell the two apart. That must mean that they were remarkably similar, or why the need for such an in depth analysis?

But you have categorically stated, as have all your cohorts, that they looked nothing like each other! Sandy has even done it on this thread!

David Josephs will post, yet again, the sloping shoulders photo to demonstrate how dissimilar they really were. Yet apparently it takes a biometric test in order to scientifically sort out 'Harvey' from 'Lee'. 

The H&L witness testimonies are adamant that they saw LHO when he was actually in Russia. They said it was the same man they saw being gunned down by Ruby. If they are correct, and you obviously believe them to be, rather than attention seekers or just plain wrong, then it means that H&L were almost IDENTICAL! But you will never admit that will you? You'll say that's not true. Because you have to!

You'll even say how dissimilar they really were on a post showing us how it needed a biometric test to tell them apart!

But you won't ever agree they looked almost identical. Why is that?

Take a pinch of clerical confusion, add a few oddball witness testimonies and mix thoroughly. You are now ready to make your Tin-Foil-Hat Pie by constructing any amount of crackpot gibberish theories the paranoid imagination can conjure up. Keep it wild and keep it impossibly outlandish. Never use rationale or reason, as this will seriously compromise the pie's texture (and may even blow the oven up). Be bold, be aggressively arrogant and be insufferably patronising, as this will season the pie to the required bitterness. 

Now begin the process of ramming the uncooked bitter pie down people's throats until they respond accordingly and spit it straight back out . Then tell those people that they are too stupid and ignorant to appreciate the true quality of pies and therefore can't be trusted as food critics, or anything else for that matter. If a few of those people decide to inspect the pie further, to examine it more thoroughly, and then discover that there is absolutely NOTHING in the inside, simply blame the absence of filling on the CIA. Works every time!

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...