Bernie Laverick

LEE in New Orleans Safe House working electronics game (fishing a lot ) LEE in Dallas at Diceman Apt with Ruby. //GAAL see link http://educationforu...=21547&p=297203 Gaal is trying to convince us (by linking us to one of his many dumps) that there is zero motivation for anyone to say things they know can't be true. So, in this context he means... what would motivate Loustreau to make the statement that he thought the arrest by Noto was in 1961, (even though Noto said it was 62)? What motivated you Steven to say it was Noto who had said it was in 1961? Was that a mistake? Did you get the wrong person? What motivated you to put "4/22" instead of "4/63" when trying to demonstrate the impossibility of a typo explaining an anomaly? Was that an error too? You know, you yourself putting down the wrong dates whilst besmirching those who thought the original 4/63 was an error by the clerk And what the hell is the point of keeping Lee in a safe-house if he's always out fishing??? Comedy gold! Again, it's just dropped in as fact that Lee lived in an apartment with Ruby but they have absolutely no proof of this whatsoever. No address. No citation. At best there will be a snippet of a conversation from a former waitress, or even more obscure than that and from this the 'fact' is then born. It's said by one and accepted as on-going fact by the rest from then on. Come on Jim, your boy's getting a right whooping here!

GO TO THE BAYLOR UNIVERSITY ARMSTRONG FILES. link >>> http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/41827/rec/3%20 You will see Oct 15,1959-June 11,1962 then CLICK ON THE DOWNLOAD BUTTON BOX on the right. YOU WILL DOWN LOAD A PDF FILE (41810 pdf). After download you will see COVER SHEET BOX 16 Notebook 2 TAB 79 Charles Noto. GO TO Pages 9,11,12,14 and 16 HAD TO BE THEN 1961 "Mr. LOUSTEAU also said that he can recall the particular incident that NOTO was talking about, but he cannot place any faces or any names. He did take a look at the photograph and said that this man is always around the Lakefront area fishing; that he has talked to him on several occasion; that he has seen him abound a panel truck with a television rgpriir sign on it which apo^rTnTly^w-Ei-3o^e by an individual and not by a professional ^Tj^'p^r^y.1 However, LOUSTEAU sajd that this-CQulo not have (happened inl9&2 fagsauss as ha •asaambars it. it was in .61. fSajSjjZcaB ^^-h~r CHAMPQa siting ^^roUabsthatj. <"* 161 J)but that he knows this incident could not have been in October or November of 1962 because JOE CRONIN was not working for the Levee Board " And did Noto or Loustreau ever say if this person calling himself LHO looked anything like the historic Oswald? There's a question you will avoid at all costs... // LAVERICK QUOTE ########################################### YES HE DID. HE SAW PHOTIOGRAPH AND HE WAS " always around the Lakefront area fishing " LEE in New Orleans Safe House working electronics game (fishing a lot ) LEE in Dallas at Diceman Apt with Ruby. //GAAL see link http://educationforu...=21547&p=297203 avoiding zero ,gaal Gaal: "...Mr. LOUSTEAU also said that he can recall the particular incident that NOTO was talking about, but he cannot place any faces or any names..." But then miraculously remembers that...YES HE DID. HE SAW PHOTIOGRAPH AND HE WAS " always around the Lakefront area fishing " So he had seen 'this man' regularly around the fishing area? Which man Steven? Was this person 'Lee'? And did he look just like the historic Oswald? btw what does the following mean, is it the cult's new language? Tj^'p^r^y.1 However, LOUSTEAU sajd that this-CQulo not have (happened inl9&2 fagsauss as ha •asaambars it. it was in .61. fSajSjjZcaB ^^-h~r CHAMPQa siting ^^roUabsthatj. <"* 161 J)but that he knows this incident could not have been in October or November of 1962 because JOE CRONIN was not It actually makes a lot more sense than most of your posts Steven: consider that.

Gaal said: Sgt, Loustreau who said 61 and Noto said he gaged the tyime as it was when they were truying to knock off Joseph CRONIN Are you on the tipple Steven? Let us suppose for one moment that when the arresting officer Noto said it was 62 he actually meant 61 as Sgt Loustreau thought it was, based on the presence of fellow employee, Cronin, who had subsequently left in March 1962. Think about this a little. That means somebody calling himself LHO, presumably Armstrong's 'Lee', for one day was allowed to break cover and heavily implicate himself and the entire ten year doppelganger project by blurting out his name to an officer of the law. You have been telling me he was locked away in a safe house. Now you have him getting arrested. Now we see him - now we don't. And did Noto or Loustreau ever say if this person calling himself LHO looked anything like the historic Oswald? There's a question you will avoid at all costs... Any reasonable person will see that it must have been 1962.

But this is from the link you implored me to read!!! This is from your link. It is from this apparently you are confident that for two and a half years there was a Lee in the USA while a Harvey was in Russia Where on the link you provided does it say that Noto thought the arrest was in 1961? It doesn't! Please apologise for misleading forum members with information you know to be untrue.

Not true, it is his duty Sgt, Loustreau who said 61. Noto said Nov 62. And anyway if it HAD been 1961 it couldn't have been Lee, he was locked up in a safe house remember? Well that was the excuse for not providing proof of his whereabouts. Now it suits, you have him ordering trucks under his doppelganger's name thus destroying the entire charade of two Oswalds. Memo to Garrison from Sciambra re Loustreau interview “As you remember from our interview with CHUCK NOTO, Mr. NOTO stated that around October of November of 1962 he arrested 2 men on the Lakefront, one of whom was supposed to be LEE HARVEY OSWALD”. Memo from Garrison to researcher Lynn Loisel on NOTO’s further recollections “…not attempt to duplicate here because he (Noto) is giving us a longer statement and these added details confirm in my mind that this was LEE HARVEY OSWALD whom he saw on the lakefront. There is a problem about the year however he remembers it as probably 1962 but possibly 1963” Sgt Loustreau disagrees and says fellow employee, Chronin, was present at the Levvy Board Police HQ that night but he had been dismissed in March 1962 so the incident “must have been 1961” Sciambra to Garrison “I also interviewed LT. JACK GLI3ER of the Levee Board Police and he said he does not recall one thing about the incident.” So, once again I ask you, where was Lee living whilst Harvey was in Russia. As I had predicted the files you referred me to show absolutely nothing suspicious whatsoever other than the mistaken recollection of ONE police sergeant. So why have you said it is Noto who is claiming it was 1961. That was a blatant lie wasn't it?

As if nobody else in the USA was ever named Lee Oswald, Harvey Oswald, or even Lee Harvey Oswald from 1940 to 1963... Regards, --Paul Trejo Paul, If you actually read Harvey and Lee, I doubt you'd make a statement like the one above. It amazes me that of the people on this forum who go to great links to say they don't believe Harvey and Lee, not a single one has actually read the book! This is hardly a case of some other completely unrelated fellow or two who just happened to be named “Lee Harvey Oswald.” Let's take a quick look at the first ten items on my list (numbers 10-6). 10. The Youth House in NY and Beauregard JHS in New Orleans attendance for Lee HARVEY Oswald and the Public School 44 NY attendance by LEE Harvey Oswald is right out of the Warren Commission. If the FBI and the Commissioners managed to identify some unrelated kid with the same name, they made a real whopper. 9. The fact that John Pic refused to ID his “brother” in the Bronx Zoo and FPCC literature images is hardly a matter of an unrelated kid with the same name. These are famous pictures, integral parts of the fable of “Lee Harvey Oswald.” 8. The fact that Social Security Administration refused to acknowledge ANY of Oswald's teen-aged income in REMARKABLE, especially since we have all those (apparently bogus) tax forms describing it. This is hardly a case of mistaken identity; these are U.S. records with names, addresses, Social Security numbers, taxpayer ID numbers, and so on. 7. When the HSCA was confronted with the evidence that Lee HARVEY Oswald departed by ship from Yokosuka, Japan on 9/16/58, eventually arriving and spending time in Taiwan, while LEE Harvey Oswald was being treated at the Naval hospital in Japan, it resulted in nothing less than a letter from Secretary of Defense Harold Brown denying that LHO left Japan. THESE ARE MARINE CORPS RECORDS OF “LEE HARVEY OSWALD!” 6. In the Bolton Ford incident, which occurred on 1/20/61, while CLASSIC LHO was in Russia, Fred Sewell indicated that the man who identified himself as “Lee Oswald” wanted to buy trucks for the Friends of Democratic Cuba. Sewell wrote both “Oswald” and “Friends of Democratic Cuba” on the sales proposal. Do you really think there were two, completely unrelated “Lee Oswalds” associated with “Friends of Democratic Cuba? "In the Bolton Ford incident, which occurred on 1/20/61, while CLASSIC LHO was in Russia, Fred Sewell indicated that the man who identified himself as “Lee Oswald” wanted to buy trucks for the Friends of Democratic Cuba." But Steven Gaal is trying to convince me that he was being kept under lock and key in a safe-house in Dallas during the time 'Harvey' was in Russia. If so, why was he allowed out to go and spill his name all over the place thus contaminating the whole elaborate plot? If he wasn't being kept in a "safe-house" then there must be some proof somewhere showing which addresses he lived at during this period. Find that and you may have something, at the moment it is just childish fantasy land. Your position is this... "There is no proof or even a report of an address so therefore he must have been kept in a safe-house". But that will now change. It has to. How else do you explain this sighting and the utter stupidity of him being there? And was it confirmed whether at the Bolton Ford sighting this Oswald actually looked like the historic Oswald? Did they look alike? If yes then that makes this plot beyond science fiction. It is impossible that two teenagers both picked for a long term project, both unrelated, could grow through adolescence and emerge almost identical; identical enough to create the Bolton Ford incident at any rate. If he didn't look like Oswald...What have you got? What all this proves is that you guys haven't got a clue; you're just blindly throwing darts at the board. Everyone knows you cannot address the above answers without recourse to abuse. I don' t expect any answers anyway because there aren't any!

So let me get this right. 'Lee' was probably under house arrest for two and half years in a CIA safe house? That's it? That's your proof that 'Lee' was in the USA whilst 'Harvey' was in Russia? That's fine. It's un-provable of course. And it does raise the further question of how there could have been any "sightings" of him if he were tucked neatly away in a safe house PRECISELY so he doesn't get spotted. Did he escape on those occasions? A bit of teenage rebellion? It's common. Nearly all 19yr old doppelgangers in waiting regularly go through that "I want to tell the world who I really am" moments. Thankfully that has left a trail that 'proves' beyond all doubt there were two Oswalds. One in Russia and the other an habitual escapee from a CIA run Dallas safe-house. Probably... You've nailed it and I apologise profusely. How stupid are people for not getting this? Look, for you sceptics and hit squad minions, how could it be that we have one Lee Harvey Oswald in Russia, and yet, we may have the other in an unknown safe house in the USA. What more proof of a doppelganger programme do you guys want? PS... Did no one wonder where 'Lee' had got to? Did anyone contact the authorities to report a missing person? POSTED THIS TWICE TO ANSWER YOU ., gaal http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22151&p=313282 It is all meaningless gibberish! You wrote... in late 1962 (see pp. 6-7, (follow-up at pp. 16-18) The ID of Hernandez was made years later and is admittedly shaky. The ID of Oswald is more substantive, as he id'd himself to the police as an FPCC member - but he was living in the Dallas area. So? What does this prove? I asked for proof of 'Lee's' whereabouts during the time 'Harvey' was in Russia and you send me that????

So let me get this right. 'Lee' was probably under house arrest for two and half years in a CIA safe house? That's it? That's your proof that 'Lee' was in the USA whilst 'Harvey' was in Russia? That's fine. It's un-provable of course. And it does raise the further question of how there could have been any "sightings" of him if he were tucked neatly away in a safe house PRECISELY so he doesn't get spotted. Did he escape on those occasions? A bit of teenage rebellion? It's common. Nearly all 19yr old doppelgangers in waiting regularly go through that "I want to tell the world who I really am" moments. Thankfully that has left a trail that 'proves' beyond all doubt there were two Oswalds. One in Russia and the other an habitual escapee from a CIA run Dallas safe-house. Probably... You've nailed it and I apologise profusely. How stupid are people for not getting this? Look, for you sceptics and hit squad minions, how could it be that we have one Lee Harvey Oswald in Russia, and yet, we may have the other in an unknown safe house in the USA. What more proof of a doppelganger programme do you guys want? PS... Did no one wonder where 'Lee' had got to? Did anyone contact the authorities to report a missing person?

Jim Hargrove, on 24 Aug 2015 - 7:40 PM, said: TOP 10 REASONS TO BELIEVE IN HARVEY AND LEE 10. The IMPOSSIBLE 1953 school scenario: Harvey at Youth House for truancy followed by Beauregard JHS in New Orleans while Lee has good attendance both semesters at PS 44 in NYC. 9. John Pic's inability to recognize clear photographs of his own brother. 8. The refusal of the Social Security Administration to corroborate the official story of "Oswald's" pre-1962 income, offering instead "Copies of three pages of the Warren Commission Report regarding employment of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to service in the Marine Corps." 7. The Marine Corps records are a gold mine: my favorite chronicles Harvey Oswald's trip to Formosa (Taiwan) while Lee was being treated for VD in Japan. 6. The Bolton Ford incident while Harvey was in Russia. 5. Marita Lorenz's secret testimony describing Lee Oswald with anti-Castro operatives in Miami and the Everglades while Harvey was in Russia. 4. Lee Oswald visiting the Texas Employment Commission, filling out forms and taking tests, while Harvey was in Russia. 3. The impossible answer(s) to the simple questions: Could Lee Harvey Oswald drive a car? Did he have a drivers license? 2. The well documented appearance of Lee Oswald in the balcony of the Texas Theater soon after the murder of J.D. Tippit with the simultaneous arrest of Harvey Oswald on the main floor of the same theater. 1. The behavior of the FBI in the first 48 hours of the "investigation," during which the Bureau confiscated many of "Lee Harvey Oswald's" school records and employment histories. Six months later, the Bureau decided to test for fingerprints on boxes in the so-called "sniper's nest." Jim, But the reason gullible True Believers like you swallow the H & L Dogma "hook, line, and sinker" is twofold: 1 ) It's a perfect example of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, and 2 ) as such it facilitates and encourages your continuing application of The Clustering Illusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion --Tommy Tommy.. Please tell the truth. HAVE YOU ACTUALLY READ HARVEY & LEE? Jim Russian Spy Ring Aimed to Make Children Agents http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444097904577537044185191340 =================================================================== Jim Graves seems to have never read book. gaal ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ PARKER Have you read the article? The "children" turns out to be one. And he was 20. And his parents deny they tried to recruit saying probably quite rightly, it would have been too risky. The clincher that the story is BS is that they claim the 20 year old stood up and saluted "Mother Russia" when the parents tried to get him to join them. That is just too corny for words. You guys a are a crack up. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ GAAL Have you read the article? planned to recruit children, see link below . ,gaal (BS NO) ========================== http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444097904577537044185191340 By Devlin Barrett Updated July 31, 2012 4:13 p.m. ET "A Russian spy ring busted in the U.S. two years ago planned to recruit members' children to become agents, and one had already agreed to his parents' request, according to current and former U.S. officials." ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Gaal link to info below >> http://www.covertbookreport.com/spy-kids-the-russians-the-finders-and-the-family/ ================================================================================================= "It seems quite possible that nearly every country in the world may have some similar operation going on – with the intent of penetrating various government agencies. But things get weirder and weirder. Here’s a piece I wrote on "The Finders" in 2010: Did The Finders Create a "Bourne Identity"? Suppose you have a thirty-year cult, run by a southern eccentric with ties to the Central Intelligence Agency. Suppose that cult raised children in austere surroundings combined with advanced education, perhaps to be used by said intelligence agency? Suppose that cult was investigated for child abuse/neglect but the investigation was shut down for "National Security" reasons? Sound like something out of a movie? Young "Jason Bournes" being created, nurtured and trained for future use? Well, something like that seems to have happened in "The Finders" cult. The unraveling of "The Finders" case brought to the forefront many long-rumored stories about possible child trafficking as well as those about children being trained for use as spies and assassins. In February 1987, a tip to the police led to the arrest of two "well dressed men" in a park in Tallahassee Florida. The men appeared to be "supervising" a group of six disheveled and hungry children. The men, who were based out of Washington D.C., were charged with child abuse. The D.C. police raided a house and warehouse, where they found many items that implicated "The Finders" cult in international intrigue and what appears to be ritual sacrifice of animals. The children were temporarily moved to an undisclosed location under armed guard due to threats to authorities. This all sounds like typical internet rumor-mongering, except the story was carried by The New York Times and U.S. News And World Report. The smoking gun was a report by U.S. Customs agent Ramon Martinez. Customs was called in to investigate a possible link to child pornography or child trafficking, and the Martinez document is shocking. There were indeed photos of many children, some naked. This in itself is not surprising due to the commune-type upbringing of The Finders. There were also photos of members in white robes, with the children, in what appears to be ritual sacrifice of goats. The Finders claim it was merely typical harvesting of animals on a farm, but the children actively participated in the disembowelment. At the time of the arrest, despite the "well dressed" appearance of the adult men, the children seemed to have no knowledge of such things as electricity and hot running water. In a strange twist, they seemed highly educated. Details of what was found in the warehouse and the customs report can be read in this report by Dave McGowan. Other items seized from the finders included Telex messages about obtaining children from Hong Kong, international money transfers, and this, from the Martinez report: "Further inspection of the premises disclosed numerous files relating to activities of the organization in different parts of the world. Locations I observed are as follows: London, Germany, the Bahamas, Japan, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Africa, Costa Rica, and ‘Europe.’ There was also a file identified as ‘Palestinian.’ Other files were identified by member name or ‘project’ name. The projects appearing to be operated for commercial purposes under front names for the Finders. There was one file entitled ‘Pentagon Break-In,’ and others referring to members operating in foreign countries". Everything in this case points to a possible prosecution for child abuse, but the investigation was shut down for National Security reasons. Marion Pettie was the leader of "The Finders" cult. Described as a tall, well-built southern gentleman, Pettie maintained a large property in Culpepper Virginia and the locations that were raided in Washington D.C. He has admitted that his wife had worked for the CIA and that his son flew for the CIA airline "Air America", long known for it’s drug-trafficking exploits in Southeast Asia. In an excellent interview in the Washington "City Paper", Pettie described his role as "Game Caller". He instructed his followers to live by the day, hour, minute. He would send them on "projects", often to foreign countries. All the Finders men dressed like FBI agents, in conservative dark suits. Not exactly your typical hippie-cult attire. At the dawn of the computer era, Pettie recruited a talented computer engineer who trained members of The Finders in computer technology. They went on to run a project for – you guessed it, The CIA. Pettie openly admits that he ran a safe house for members of intelligence agencies, from The Office of Navel Intelligence, to the OSS, to any spook that needed a place to hang out. He claims he would "study them". The children that were found in the park with the "well-dressed men" were returned to their mothers and the cult. The investigation was dropped. The most recent information I could research on The Finders was a blog post by a guy named Michael Phillips. Phillips claims to have met The Finders in San Francisco in the 1970’s. Phillips respects the group, and thinks they had innovative ideas. Several Finders-type comments followed his blog post, one saying that Pettie and other founding members were now dead, and thanked him for the kind words. Phillips had just proof-read a 550-page manuscript of a book on the finders by member Robert "Tobe" Terrell. Another questionable report on a New Zealand Indymedia blog said that The Finders had relocated to Taiwan. I don’t know about that. ——– We will never know the true story of "The Finders", what they were training the children for, or the source of their wealth. The Washington "City Paper" article says that some former members were suing Pettie and the remaining estate of the cult. The articles I researched are split into at least three categories. The right-wing writers focus on Satanic ritual abuse. The left side suspects the children may have been programed to be spies or assassins. People like the blogger Phillips suggest they were just elaborate role-playing adventurers. It is well known that intelligence agencies run programs resembling The Finders, such as the Kool-Aid massacres in Jonestown. It’s easy to pull a Sirhan-Sirhan or Lee Harvey Oswald out of these groups when they need one. But let’s close with this chilling conclusion to the report of U.S. Customs officer Martinez: "On April 2, 1987, I arrived at MPD at approximately 9:00 a.m. Detective Bradley was not available. I spoke to a third party who was willing to discuss the case with me on a strictly ‘off the record’ basis. "I was advised that all the passport data had been turned over to the State Department for their investigation. The State Department in turn, advised the MPD that all travel and use of the passports by the holders of the passports was within the law and no action would be taken. This included travel to Moscow, North Korea, and North Vietnam from the late 1950s to mid 1970s. "The individual further advised me of circumstances which indicated that the investigation into the activity of the Finders had become a CIA internal matter. The MPD report has been classified SECRET and was not available for review. I was advised that the FBI had withdrawn from the investigation several weeks prior and that the FBI Foreign Counter Intelligence Division had directed MPD not to advise the FBI Washington Field Office of anything that had transpired. "No further information will be available. No further action will be taken." " ———————————————– UPDATE: The spy aged EIGHT: How American forces recruited a young boy to plant a chip on his stepfather – an Al Qaeda target in Yemen – so they could kill him in a drone strikeNew allegations claim that an 8-year-old Yemeni boy who was abandoned by his biological family was then roped back into their clutches The boy’s biological father works for the Yemeni Republican Guard, which helps U.S. forces, and they asked have an al Qaeda operative located That operative had been added to the U.S. ‘kill list’ The Republican Guard knew that one of their officer’s children had been taken in by that target, Adnan al-Qadhi, so they called the biological father and asked him to have his son place the chip on the surrogate father The boy complied and days later, Qadhi was killed in a drone strike By Daily Mail Reporter PUBLISHED: 18:21 EST, 15 August 2013 | UPDATED: 09:10 EST, 16 August 2013 So where, which addresses, was 'Lee' living at whilst 'Harvey' was in Russia? Do you have firm proof that he lived there? David Josephs says that it was reported that people used to "go there looking for him". Go where? And who reported it? Where are the citations for this? Without this you have nothing! Except lots and lots of tin-foil hats...

whether he answers or not, I'm thinkin' the answer is pretty clear... but that's just me... -- Nall Glenn, Hargrove asked me whether or not I had read Harvey and Lee. I answered his question. Before you made your inane statement in post # 1420. Did you read my answer five posts before yours? I'm thinkin' the answer's real clear -- No you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't have posted your inane, vaguely insulting, chicken-you-know-what statement. Here's the pertinent part, Glenn, so you can read it and get over it. [from post #1415] Now, to answer your question, [Jim Hargrove], heck no, I haven't read Harvey and Lee! Why the heck would I want to waste my time doing given its patently ridiculous premises -- 1 ) that two young boys (and their mothers!) were chosen by the bad guys to participate in an elaborate double-doppelganger project, and that the bad guys somehow knew that the two boys would grow up to look very similar (when necessary) and very different (when necessary); ditto their mothers after they were already adults, 2 ) that "Lee" was (evidently) moved around and hidden in "safe" houses for two-and-one-half years so that he wouldn't bump into any of his friends and acquaintances while "Harvey" was in the USSR, and 3 ) that both "Lee's" and "Harvey's" families were "in on" the project all the way, and have miraculously been able to keep from "spilling the beans" / "letting the cat out of the bag" on it, both before and after the assassination, for about 60 years now. Seems to me the bad guys would have killed them all a long time ago to prevent that from happening. But then again maybe that wasn't necessary because the bad guys just MKULTRA-ed all of them 60 years ago to exhibit zombie-like silence and programmed ..... obfuscation. You know, with occasional "limited hangouts." That's it, isn't it, Jim. (Speaking of pinto beans, I think Armstrong must have eaten a 55-gallon drum of them and the resultant gas caused him to come up with these weirdo ideas. Or was it ... mushrooms???) To tell you the truth, Jim, I'm starting to entertain the idea that H&L is nothing but an elaborate CIA "disinfo project," designed to divide and confuse the JFK assassination research community. For now, Jim, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm gonna assume that you're just suffering from the effects of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy and its psychological corollary,the Clustering Illusion Syndrome. Add a liberal dash of paranoia and what do you hav? The Harvey and Lee Cult. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion --Tommy I'm starting to realize that your name could easily mis-spelled by anybody as ""Null" (almost did it myself --LOL), which would be ironic and perfect because, well, although you post often, you don't seem to have much of value to say on this forum. You seem to be kind of a .... dilettante? A gadfly, ... if you will? "No offense," Glenn. --Tommy nothing chicken xxxx about it, Thomas. I implied that i don't think you've read it, and then you admitted you haven't, then i said i don't know how someone can be such an authority as to so summarily dismiss such a complex theory without having read a book by its proponent. it's simple. to defeat an enemy you have to know the enemy. what's chicken xxxx is attacking me when i've given you no reason to. and before you go saying i'm being a baby, i'll refer any of the instigators to the fact that the admin here have already posted a warning against such agitation. I'm remiss in responding to it, but I'm damn sure not guilty of instigating it. if you don't like the fact that my opinion differs from yours, then there has to be some means of peace within yourself to overcome it. therapy, something. but attacking me isn't going to help your situation at all. and believe me, it's not going to hurt mine. You got it backwards, Glenn. First, in post # 1413, I "admitted" that I hadn't read it. And I explained why. Then, seven posts later, in post #1420, you oh-so-subtly "implied" that you thought I hadn't read it. Your subtle grasp of the obvious is amazing. Your laziness is astounding. Your willingness to improperly "jump" on somebody oh-so-subtly is rather depressing, actually. Why are you here? Are you just a dil-la-taunt? The hypocrisy you evidence is ironic: You obviously hadn't read my "admission" that I hadn't read H&L, but oh-so-subtly attacked me for allegedly not saying whether or not I had read it! What a hypocrite. No offense. --Tommy Hey Tommy, why waste time on someone who boasts about regularly being called a racist?

"who the hell am I to pass judgement on someone else's opinions?" A citizen with his own (maybe contradictory, maybe complimentary) opinions. That's the fun of living in a democracy. Do you say this before you vote for anyone? Do you say that whilst doing jury service? Do you not pass judgement on the opinions of violent dictators? Would communists in the Whitehouse encourage your judgement on their opinions? You have an extremely over inflated sense of your own self worth that doesn't tally with reality. You've done nothing BUT pass judgement since you exploded onto here a few weeks ago. That's why you are here!

So you won't answer any questions because you consider that I don't really want any answers. Neat and cosy eh? LN Carlier did that to me once. He made a ridiculous statement, I called him out on it and asked him a pertinent question I knew he couldn't answer. He blatantly came back with "No, I'm not answering you because I don't like your attitude!" I have asked you a pertinent question and similarly you have no proof to back up your answer. So your response, like Carlier, is to attack my motive. Who cares what my motive is anyway? If this theory is so rock solid you would have humiliated me with reams of evidence and proof that 'Lee' was in USA while 'Harvey' was in Russia. You've chosen not to do so and instead play coy and attack my motive for questioning. Neat. In all the time it took you to write the above you could have simply provided the proof that Ruby had rented Lee an apartment and citations for all the "people that came looking for him there." But once again...you didn't! You never do. What does that say?

David, why is it you are capable of writing 1,000's of posts using millions of words copied from some other person's work, yet become very coy when asked basic questions about gaping holes in the theory. Surely for H&L to have any credibility there needs to be some firm solid proof of 'Lee's' two and a half years spent in the USA whilst 'Harvey' is in Russia. Where was this apartment Ruby had rented for Lee? Who were all the people who came "looking for Lee at these locations" (so, more than one apartment then?) You throw stuff into the mix and sell it off as fact. You're very tough on calling Greg out when you demand proof of his rebuttals but very shy when it comes to doing it yourself. "Google it!" "Do your own homework!" "Why waste my time?!" and so it goes. That tells me you don't have an answer because if you did you would take great pride in explaining it. Come on David, admit it, if this was JVB you would be demanding similar levels of proof: the onus would be on her, not you. If she refused to answer any of your salient points because it would incriminate her fantasy, and fobbed you off with a "do your own work!" instead, you would certainly accept that as proof that she has nothing! Likewise.

To his friends and family "Lee" was in Russia played by a small eastern European man When Anna Lewis says repeatedly she met Lee Oswald in New Orleans in Feb 1962 - the same month Harvey is with Marina while giving birth to June in Russia. She says this twice with Baker sitting right behind her. The film stops a number of times yet not once in that interview does Judy's cooroboration place her with Oswald in the summer of 1963. Any ideas? LEE entered the Marines ahead of Harvey LEE left the Marines in March 1959. The last photo we have of Lee Oswald is his 1959 Passport photo. When Harvey came back from Russia - NONE of his relatives recognized him and could not believe it was the same man. Good thing it was 1960 when the speed of news and info traveled slowly. So where was he? What address did 'Lee' live at during the time 'Harvey' was in Russia? Can you prove that 'Lee' was definitely somewhere in the USA during that period? And the onus is on you to do that, not the other way round. You're the one trying to sell this dud, so let's see some proof for once. Presumably 'Lee' would have been ordered underground because the very fact of his existence would blow the whole scheme wouldn't it? So let's see your chops, and quit with the tittle-tattle already... Golly gosh, this H&L lingo is contagious Why would Anna Lewis lie? Is there a motive to incorrectly place Lee in N.O. when even she should know he was in Minsk? Even if a year off... It wasn't until April 63 that Harvey gets there. Ruby had rented an apartment for Lee... I've posted these docs a few times already... That Lee and Ruby were a "thing" was implied and reported on in Dallas. We know Clay and Ferris ran in that circle... What exactly do you want Bernie? I've posted a ton of evidence showing they were different kids. Plenty of evidence that Lee was taken care of by Ruby and lived in the Dallas area and knew different people than Harvey. It's actually in my first piece on Mexico, the reports of their being together and of Ruby getting Lee an apartment. People even came looking for Lee at these locations. When the gov't said it went down one way, most just figured they saw it or heard wrong. That's one if the reasons this case us so important. We finally began questioning the BS and simply haven't stopped. What exactly is so horrible if John and others in this conclusion are right? Just something that was hidden. Makes Oswald an even greater mystery. Why so much anger and hostility over a fairly well documented theory? John run over your dog or something? The attacking just seems so disproportionately strong to the effect of the book on the community. During this same time I've written 300 pages on Mexico, a Baker piece and a 70 page article proving things about the rifle, microfilm and money order most were not aware of.... Not to mention posts on a variety of subjects. H&L is an interesting corner of this monster topic... But for Pete sakes already, get a life, read a different book, write a song... Disproving H&L can't be the only reason you get up in the morning... Right? Ruby had rented an apartment for Lee... Where? What address? That Lee and Ruby were a "thing" was implied and reported on in Dallas... Implied? Reported? By who? of evidence that Lee was taken care of by Ruby and lived in the Dallas area and knew different people than Harvey...Where are these people? Why haven't they talked like Kudlaty did? People even came looking for Lee at these locations... Who and where are these people? These are not unreasonable questions to ask of a theory that states one man was in Russia whilst his doppelganger was in the USA. Showing the proof of his whereabouts is level 1 for this theory. Without that you have absolutely nothing.

Relax Jim. Take some deep breaths. In through the nose, out through the mouth. That's right. Good. Feel better already, don't you. The reason I didn't see your increasingly frantic posts is because I was busy doing some actual research for another thread. (Have you ever done any actual research, Jim?) What I was trying to do is locate and determine how far away the Monterey Motel (where ten Cuban exiles driving into New Orleans from Miami on 7/24/63 allegedly spent the night because both cars "broke down") was from the "Big 7 Road" camp near Lacombe. Any of that mean anything to you, Jim? (Hint: log in to eBay and type in Monterey Motel New Orleans to get the address off of a couple of old postcards -- the motel no longer exists -- it's now the location of a Fuel Zone convenience store.) In case you're interested, you can read all about it on Chris Newton's excellent thread "Lacombe Training Camp Location part duex [sic]". Now, to answer your question, heck no, I haven't read Harvey and Lee! Why the heck would I want to waste my time doing given its patently ridiculous premises -- 1 ) that two young boys (and their mothers!) were chosen by the bad guys to participate in an elaborate double-doppelganger project, and that the bad guys somehow knew that the two boys would grow up to look very similar (when necessary) and very different (when necessary); ditto their mothers after they were already adults, 2 ) that "Lee" was (evidently) moved around and hidden in "safe" houses for two-and-one-half years so that he wouldn't bump into any of his friends and acquaintances while "Harvey" was in the USSR, and 3 ) that both "Lee's" and "Harvey's" families were "in on" the project all the way, and have miraculously been able to keep from "spilling the beans" / "letting the cat out of the bag" on it, both before and after the assassination, for about 60 years now. Seems to me the bad guys would have killed them all a long time ago to prevent that from happening. But then again maybe that wasn't necessary because the bad guys just MKULTRed all of them into obedient, zombie-like silence and obfuscation. That's it, isn't it, Jim. (Speaking of beans, I think Armstrong must have eaten a 55-gallon drum of them and the resultant gas caused him to come up with these weirdo ideas. Or maybe it was... mushrooms?) But to tell you the truth, Jim, I'm starting to entertain the idea that H&L is nothing but an elaborate CIA "disinfo project," designed to divide and confuse the JFK research community. But for now, Jim, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt, and I'm gonna assume that you're just suffering from the effects of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy and its psychological corollary,the Clustering Illusion syndrome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion --Tommy Bumped for Jim Hargrove. Bump.

So... he blended into NEW YORK by dressing... like a Southerner... in the VERY CLOTHES that caused the REAL LIFE Lee Oswald to get teased at school in New York? No insults? Then stop insulting everyone's intelligence. He is being a southerner yes. Would it be better if his classmates saw a very intelligent bookish lad that had superior foreign language abilities ?? Would that blend him in on his role to assume another (southern) identity)? Jeans for him at this stage is actually a intel training exercise ....the art of disguise. He is blending into the role. That does not take that much intelligence to understand , now does it ?? " No insults? Then stop insulting everyone's intelligence." / PARKER QUOTE Is there a cure for insults ??. , gaal Then he changes a little. Harvey (who you think does not exist) is being monitored and teasing might toughen up this possible future asset. gaal ============= This just in Parker concedes fence height,,,,, gaal Like he "blended" into the role by insisting that Ms Darouse call him "Harvey"? BELOW QUOTE Harvey and Lee website http://harveyandlee.net/Early/Early.html " In the spring of 1954, while HARVEY was in Myra DaRouse's eighth grade homeroom class in the basement cafeteria, LEE Oswald was in homeroom 303 on the 3rd floor of Beauregard, according to school records. On each and every one of LEE Oswald's eighth grade report cards is the notation "303" and a student progress report that read, "Lee Oswald, grade 8, homeroom 303." These records show that tall, husky LEE Oswald was in homeroom 303 in the eighth grade at Beauregard (spring semester of 1954), while at the same time the short, thin, quiet HARVEY Oswald was in Myra DaRouse's homeroom class in the basement cafeteria. When I told Myra that "Oswald's" school report cards listed his homeroom as "303" she said, "That's impossible. He was in my homeroom in the basement cafeteria." I then showed Myra the photo of HARVEY Oswald, taken at the Bronx Zoo in 1953 in New York. She said, "That's him, just like I remember him." And then I showed Myra the classroom photo of the tall, husky LEE Oswald taken at Beauregard that appeared in Life Magazine. She looked at the photo a long time and then said, "That's not HARVEY. That's not the boy from my homeroom. Look at this boy. He looks like a football player and HARVEY was skinny." Myra saw HARVEY Oswald every day at Beauregard, before school, in her homeroom, in the school library, and after school, during the spring semester of 1954. Ed Voebel and HARVEY were good friends, and were always riding their bicycles together after school. Voebel was with HARVEY when the piano fell on his legs. But after school ended in early June, neither Myra nor Voebel ever saw HARVEY again." ============================================================== " Like he "blended" into the role by insisting that Ms Darouse call him "Harvey"? " / PARKER QUOTE =========================================================================================================== Oh my you mean he just accepted his role conversion without any childhood rebellion ? He would later use that name in the future as a proclamation of his individuality while living in an environment beyond his control. ,gaal He would later use that name in the future as a proclamation of his individuality while living in an environment beyond his control. ,gaal Any proof of that?

To his friends and family "Lee" was in Russia played by a small eastern European man When Anna Lewis says repeatedly she met Lee Oswald in New Orleans in Feb 1962 - the same month Harvey is with Marina while giving birth to June in Russia. She says this twice with Baker sitting right behind her. The film stops a number of times yet not once in that interview does Judy's cooroboration place her with Oswald in the summer of 1963. Any ideas? LEE entered the Marines ahead of Harvey LEE left the Marines in March 1959. The last photo we have of Lee Oswald is his 1959 Passport photo. When Harvey came back from Russia - NONE of his relatives recognized him and could not believe it was the same man. Good thing it was 1960 when the speed of news and info traveled slowly. So where was he? What address did 'Lee' live at during the time 'Harvey' was in Russia? Can you prove that 'Lee' was definitely somewhere in the USA during that period? And the onus is on you to do that, not the other way round. You're the one trying to sell this dud, so let's see some proof for once. Presumably 'Lee' would have been ordered underground because the very fact of his existence would blow the whole scheme wouldn't it? So let's see your chops, and quit with the tittle-tattle already... Golly gosh, this H&L lingo is contagious

"Jeans for him at this stage is actually a intel training exercise ....the art of disguise." Ha ha ha!! Are you a night club Comic Steven? For the 100th time of asking...Where was 'Lee' and what did he tell his friends and family while 'Harvey' was in Russia?

For some reason it wouldn't allow me to attach this to the original thread. Glenn said: "i'm saying most people are concerned with some initial civility - its very basic standards of behaviour" See my very first post on this thread, you will see it starts with "Hi Glenn" and ends with "Best regards". I couldn't have been more civil. But because you have an extremely lofty 'impression' of your own puffed up intellectual superiority, you obviously missed that and whined on about being patronised. Another accusation worse than being called an anti Semite in your world. Why am I not surprised when you admit "i'm called racist regularly here in Atlanta." What a creepy thing to say on a public forum! It's the word "regularly" I find profoundly disturbing. Once again though, they're all wrong because the great oracle of infinite wisdom, you, thinks it not so. And neither does it bother you that people regularly call you a racist. Get a grip man! Either, you are the victim of a constant and 'regular' on-going malicious injustice by having a totally unwarranted label of being a racist thrown at you. Or...well you fill in the blanks eh? You're an angry man aren't you? I don't want to be complicit in seeing this topic deliberately derailed any further, so if your addictive obsession demands that you repeatedly talk and post about Greg's 'rudeness' I suggest you start your own topic on him.

Bernie, I appreciate the candor. I understand our first amendment better than you think, though. I never intimated that i had a problem with his verbally disagreeing with another theory. i have a problem with how he talks to people in general. If you read more than that last post of mine, you'd see that i said that very thing. also, if you'd read more than you clearly read, you'd see that i also stated more then once that I bet he has some good intellect and research to offer, but that i'd lost interest in it once i saw how he "rolls." in fact, that's how i started this little string, saying that his point about that mimeographed form might be interesting, but i'll never know cause i don't care to read his stuff ... missed that too, did ya? of course... your logic is flawed. i've done nothing to lead anyone to think i dislike Greg - "intensely." it's his rudeness i dislike intensely, and if i'd seen anything resembling a good reason to act the way he does, then i'd feel differently. but i haven't. (How long have i been active in this forum, um - Bernie? long enough to have had the chance to see what you're talking about? do you even know how long? yet you assume i should have witnessed improper behavior from John or Jon or whomever toward Greg by now - i've only seen Cliff show his arse to Pat, and i said the same thing to him. Rudeness is for children. period.) that sentence you quoted was probably more in response to something Greg said to me, and not in response to his approach to this H&L thing. I am quite capable of making sound judgement on available information. i don't need any of these fellows "thoughts" or biases to urge my direction. The funny thing is, the ones who i respect the most are the ones who are NOT trying to pull me away from their detractors, whereas Greg - and now you - seem to be concerned with my ability to form my own opinions do you not see the um, "irony" in that? do not be so condescending as to tell me who to listen to, Bernie. I'm an adult now. I've been thinking all by myself for quite awhile. go read ALL the things i said to Greg, you'll see where you may have jumped the gun. It's nothing to do with H&L or any theory. You just made that assumption all by yourself. look ma, no hands! You have a really creepy and very unhealthy obsession with Greg. You do know that don't you? Why? You castigate him for being a whiner when he is publicly labelled an anti Semite by Steven Gaal, a mere "slight" according to you, yet here you are with lots of "whining" words on Greg and his... 'rudeness'. Obviously being 'rude' needs 1,000's of reprimanding words in response. But defending oneself against baseless trolling accusations of anti Semitism? Shame on you for not condemning Gaal and his libellous accusation. Presumably being labelled an anti Semite is no big deal to you. But being labelled 'rude' would be. I'll leave it there. How do you block people? You conveniently overloooked two of my points: "How long have i been active in this forum, Bernie? long enough to have had the chance to see [these attacks from Steve, et al] you're talking about? do you even know how long (NO, you don't)? yet you assume i should have witnessed improper behavior from John or Jon or whomever toward Greg by now." "Shame on you for not condemning Gaal and his libellous accusation." the point is, i've never seen Gaal and his libelous accusation. so STOP with whatever i'm ignoring. I can't ignore it if i haven't seen it. you're weird. "Presumably being labelled an anti Semite is no big deal to you. But being labelled 'rude' would be." 1. Right. it's no big deal to be called names. i kinda grew out of being bothered by it once I became aware of and confident in my own person. I live in Atlanta, GA where caucasians are a minority in public and in government. BY FAR. I'm called a racist ALL THE TIME. I laugh at people who clearly do not know me. If I were not confident in myself, then it would bother me. hmmm... 2. Wrong. first, i'm not labelling Greg rude. I'm describing his behavior and simply stating that i can't stand that kind of behavior, especially when it's directed "downhill." and secondly, I happen to be quite a brash, opinionated and sometimes obstinate person. I'm also called rude quite often, and i cannot typically argue the case. They're often right. so, NO, being called rude is no big deal, either. I know myself. I know when I'm being rude - in FACT, i've admitted it earlier when i said i blocked DVP because he makes me react rudely. you seemed to miss that, too. don't some people call this 'cherry-picking'...? the difference in my occasional rudeness and Greg's is that he resorts to and repeats personal insult, often out of context (re his words to Steve) and mine is usually just in response to someone else's crap. also, i'm aware of mine, and i'm not happy with mine. Greg seems to wear his like a medal. anyway. I'm just defending the forum and its environment, and a few of the people. if they've said anything to justify Greg's words, then (i think i've said this before, which you've again overlooked) i'd say the same thing to them. this forum is fodder for rabbit-trails and petty, lengthy backbiting. I still get a lot out of it, and i'm just hoping the cancers are eventually excised so the rest of us can get on with the business of joyous intel gathering. also, right, what's your name? Bernie? nice first impression you've made. i'm thoroughly unimpressed with your fair and objective observations in culling my words for your errant assertions. try reading my posts slowly, maybe you'll see where i've been very fair in my comments. you continue to accuse me knowing i'll respond and then accuse me of being obsessed with Greg. you're way out of your league in your accusations. you're just plain wrong. i know what i've said, and you've overlooked it. ta ta also, right, what's your name? Bernie? nice first impression you've made. Sorry I didn't realise I had to somehow "impress" you when addressing your obsession with Greg. I guess I've failed the interview now. Yes, it's Bernie. The clue is in the first name. That is...Bernie. Well done, you now know how to discern someone's name. "Right. it's no big deal to be called names." Referring to Gaal's libellous accusation of Greg's anti Semitism (not to me being called Bernie!) Really? Oh I'm sure I could push some buttons to get you to react Glenn. I'm too nice a person though. But you do seem to be a man of obsessive habits...

Bernie, I appreciate the candor. I understand our first amendment better than you think, though. I never intimated that i had a problem with his verbally disagreeing with another theory. i have a problem with how he talks to people in general. If you read more than that last post of mine, you'd see that i said that very thing. also, if you'd read more than you clearly read, you'd see that i also stated more then once that I bet he has some good intellect and research to offer, but that i'd lost interest in it once i saw how he "rolls." in fact, that's how i started this little string, saying that his point about that mimeographed form might be interesting, but i'll never know cause i don't care to read his stuff ... missed that too, did ya? of course... your logic is flawed. i've done nothing to lead anyone to think i dislike Greg - "intensely." it's his rudeness i dislike intensely, and if i'd seen anything resembling a good reason to act the way he does, then i'd feel differently. but i haven't. (How long have i been active in this forum, um - Bernie? long enough to have had the chance to see what you're talking about? do you even know how long? yet you assume i should have witnessed improper behavior from John or Jon or whomever toward Greg by now - i've only seen Cliff show his arse to Pat, and i said the same thing to him. Rudeness is for children. period.) that sentence you quoted was probably more in response to something Greg said to me, and not in response to his approach to this H&L thing. I am quite capable of making sound judgement on available information. i don't need any of these fellows "thoughts" or biases to urge my direction. The funny thing is, the ones who i respect the most are the ones who are NOT trying to pull me away from their detractors, whereas Greg - and now you - seem to be concerned with my ability to form my own opinions do you not see the um, "irony" in that? do not be so condescending as to tell me who to listen to, Bernie. I'm an adult now. I've been thinking all by myself for quite awhile. go read ALL the things i said to Greg, you'll see where you may have jumped the gun. It's nothing to do with H&L or any theory. You just made that assumption all by yourself. look ma, no hands! You have a really creepy and very unhealthy obsession with Greg. You do know that don't you? Why? You castigate him for being a whiner when he is publicly labelled an anti Semite by Steven Gaal, a mere "slight" according to you, yet here you are with lots of "whining" words on Greg and his... 'rudeness'. Obviously being 'rude' needs 1,000's of reprimanding words in response. But defending oneself against baseless trolling accusations of anti Semitism? Shame on you for not condemning Gaal and his libellous accusation. Presumably being labelled an anti Semite is no big deal to you. But being labelled 'rude' would be. I'll leave it there. How do you block people?

"...If a person wants to believe that there were THREE Oswalds, or that Jackie did it, or that JFK was in on it (which is my theory, for which I have photographic evidence), then what is that to you? Why attack someone for their beliefs? Are all of your beliefs beyond reproach? Is it only in America that we've preserved freedom of speech and expression? Hi Glenn, that's a very forthright statement to make regarding freedom of speech and beliefs. Please note though that freedom of speech does NOT mean others don't have the right to criticise or challenge what you say. In fact, that is the essence of free speech. Yes you can say what you want (within reason) but likewise, anyone can then, using their right of free speech, respond in a manner they see fit. We have this in England anyway... Say I were to make a horrible personal verbal attack against a loved member of your family Glen, with gritted teeth you may accept my 'right' to say it, but you too would then have every right to respond in kind. Wouldn't you? And quite right too. There's a price to pay for freedom of speech. Too many people these days truly believe freedom of speech means freedom to speak without any one else's opinion on what was said. It isn't. So why the surprise when on a public forum dedicated to the most complex murder in the history of humanity some theories and beliefs are questioned and not just left unanswered? Does DVP get this easy ride? Of course he doesn't. There must be theories on this subject that you now know are so impossible they can and should be ruled out, ridiculed even, with better reasoning and research. Do you simply let them go unchallenged? And if so, why does that mean others should too? Those who attack the H&L story do so because they truly believe that it is an impediment to finding out what really happened. They believe it to be a huge red herring that tells us absolutely nothing about the assassination of JFK. Nothing! DVP's conclusions also tell us nothing about what really happened, but should his Lone-Nuttery go unchallenged too? So why shouldn't those who believe H&L is a tenuously knocked together string of admin errors and witness fallibility rolled into a complex espionage story straight from some awful B movie express that doubt? This is Don Jeffries territory. He too simply cannot understand why on a public forum those promoting a certain theory should be questioned on it, even if it can easily be proved to be bogus. "If you don't believe it, read another thread!" is his summarised advice. Well, actually, no. David Josephs often posts on issues where he strongly disagrees with the originator's premise. So does practically everyone else on here. Someone makes a post, others point out possible errors. That's really the whole point isn't it? But the H&L group don't want that. They don't want to be questioned on their theory. They don't feel it is incumbent on them to have to reply to glaring inconsistencies raised by other forum members. My experience on here is that anyone who takes them on will be subjected to heaps of personal abuse. Maybe you are not aware of this toxic history Glenn. I've seen people come and go on here for years. In that time I've also seen many people take on the H&L theory and as soon as members start asking pertinent questions that cannot be answered they get personal. Very personal! Only a few days ago Steven Gaal started a thread basically accusing Greg of anti Semitism. I complained about the legal ramifications of this and it was taken down. This is the type of tactics Greg deals with all the time. You clearly dislike him intensely yet you turn a blind eye (again, as does Don Jeffries) to the constant baiting (going back years) from this group that has all the hallmarks of a cult. Not once in the ten years I have followed this forum has anyone of them ever admitted that they are, or have been, wrong at any time and not one new piece of 'proof' has emerged that in any way even slightly backs up their basic premise. Such a theory needs to be felled to the ground Glenn. That you don't like the method being used is not a reason to believe in any of this nonsense though. Check what has been said. But more importantly check what is always ignored and always unanswered. Best regards, Bernie

Bernie, John Armstrong doesn't pay any attention to "internet chat rooms," as he always calls forums like this, but during a number of our phone conversations I've read him some of Steven Gaal's posts, including info from Gaal's links, and John has been VERY interested. If you make ANY EFFORT AT ALL to listen, Mr. Gaal has some fascinating things to say. I must say that few people here want to hear it, though. Wow, they must be riveting conversations! You really recite Steven's 20,000 word-dumps to John Armstrong over the phone? If he's that interested why doesn't he do what most people do and simply read it from source, i.e., here? Don't kid yourself Jim, he's on here every day and you know it! Either he prefers servants to feed him info from the internet "chat rooms", because he is too important to do it himself...or, it's a lie and he devours everything that is said about his work. Who spends ten years and huge amounts of money on a body of work but then takes no interest in what his peer researchers think and relies on others to feed him titbits (BOTH pro and anti H&L) from "chat rooms"? This is just Guru worship. That's why hardly anyone takes it seriously.

It strange to me soooooooooo many Anti H & L people atheist and agnostics. ,gaal Not really, it's just that we don't believe in fairy tales. So we have the main protagonist of the H&L nonsense now being promoted by someone who believes the earth is only 6,000 years old!!! Not for the first time, John Armstrong will be pulling his hair out when he reads your last few posts. He deserves better than this. All that work. All that money. Trashed. Yes Steven, you see his work as evangelical, a complex tome of hidden mysteries, unseen hands, walls and mirrors, and secret cosmic codes that only the very wise can interpret. Add a huge dollop of unrestricted messianic faith and a willingness to be told what to think and we have a mind set almost identical to fanatical religious fundamentalism. Keep digging...

alt.conspiracy.jfk › Will the Real O.V. Campbell Please Stand up? donald willis3/4/10 Other recipients: Texas School Book Depository VP Ochus V. Campbell was all over the place, literally, in his statements after the assassination. Perhaps because he knew and said too much to the NY Herald Tribune: "Shortly after the shooting we raced back into the Texas School Book Depository VP Ochus V. Campbell was all over theplace, literally, in his statements after the assassination. Perhaps because he knew and said too much to the NY Herald Tribune: "Shortly after the shooting we raced back into the building. We saw Oswald in a small storage room on the ground floor." (11/23/63) Had he stuck to his guns, figuratively, he would have helped absolve Oswald of any shooting that day--and relegated him to a minor role. a mere Rosencrantz, simple Distractor of Cops, say, who gave the shooters time to pack up their gear. But lo & behold an alternate version of Campbell's actions appeared the same day in the Dallas Mourning News: "Campbell said he ran toward a grassy knoll west of the building where he thought the sniper had hidden." Notice it's not a direct quote here, though, hence carries less weight than the NYHT version. But. well, if this version were true, then, no, Campbell could not have been there with Truly & Baker to see Oswald on the first floor. But apparently the DMN version was not true. The testimony of others, including Geneva Hine, may have led Campbell to change his tune again, from "I'm a knoll cowhand" to "Back in the Building Again": "He observed the car rush away from the scene. He then immediately rushed into his building...." Ah! back to square one? Not quite. The chorus has changed: "[Campbell] added that he is not personally acquainted with [Oswald] & has never seen him." (FBI interview of Campbell 11/24/63) Backpedaling 1A, eh? Or, Two Ways of Discounting a First-Floor Encounter with Oswald. One (DMN): Run fast, in the other direction. Two (FBI): Run fast in the same direction, but say not just that you did not see Oswald then & there, but that you *never* saw him. Never say never.... Campbell, guilty with too many explanations.... Oswald, guilty of being merely a first-floor pawn in the conspiracy.... dcw Steve Gaal said: "...德克萨斯州教科书存副总裁Ochus五坎贝尔是所有的地方，从字面上看，在刺杀后，他的发言。也许是因为他知道，说太多了纽约先驱论坛报：“不久之后的拍摄，我们赶回到 德克萨斯州教科书存副总裁Ochus五坎贝尔遍 地方，从字面上看，在刺杀后，他的发言。也许 因为他知道，说太多了纽约先驱论坛报 后不久的拍摄，我们赶回进入大楼。我们看到 奥斯瓦尔德在一楼的小储藏...." Bob, the whole point of the H^L cult is to disrupt threads and steer them onto endless and utterly pointless discussions over tonsils teeth and Taiwan! I just don't know how he gets away with it...