Bernie Laverick

Don't know how you find the energy to keep arguing with Parker and his minions. P.S. Hello Don? Or James?

"those in Parker's camp..." Not fifteen words in and, ironically, the baiting starts. Do you mean to be that condescending? I'm not in anyone's "camp". I suppose it's an improvement on "minion", a taunt I have had repeatedly thrown at me by David Josephs. Where were you then? You mentioned earlier your total antipathy to Greg and how his style irritates you. I think it's fair to say Don, you just don't like him. Nor do you like the fact that he attacks YOUR pet theory. And does it well. That's what really hurts isn't it? Your main objection to Greg is he attacks the dubious methods of the proponents of a theory you support. You intervene only to berate and bait him while turning two blind eyes to the vile and dishonest tactics used by David josephs. Greg Parker is the one doing the baiting here, not David or those who support him You have to be joking?? You say this purely because you don't like his arguments. So anyone who refutes him is given a free reign to do tenfold all the things you accuse Greg of. Go back and read the thread and you will see many times several members have mentioned that Josephs was blatantly trying to start a flame war to get posts hidden or people banned. Where were you then? "...once by writing, "P.S., Hello, Don" for some inexplicable reason..." Nothing inexplicable Don. It's just that you post very early on, again berating Greg on his "aggressive style", then disappear whilst your confederates try every trick in the book to avoid and evade basic questions, including one 18,000 word cut and paste dump by Gaal, endless argumentative misrepresentations and outright childish baiting. I guess Greg was wondering whether you were paying attention after a particularly aggressive piece of baiting by your boy. Clearly you were, but he's on the 'right' side so nothing is said. Get it now Don? "and pointing fingers at others with the timeless childhood claims of "But it's his fault!" Ha ha ha!!! And without a hint of irony! To top it off you make a wild claim against another member (lo and behold, he's not a true believer either) and then when asked to clarify it fob him off by asking him to find it himself! You have said many times how you cannot understand why people could be so motivated to debunk someone else's theory. You once pleaded that for those who don't believe then don't read the posts. Live and let live. David thinks this, you think that. let's just leave it at that eh? No Don. If Cinque were on here constantly pushing his ridiculous Lovelady/Oswald photo nonsense, should we just all leave him to it? By interpreting the evidence in a better way such nonsense can always be refuted; but you reckon we should just keep it to ourselves and don't go upsetting Cinque. And if he starts being aggressive and evasive just step in and defend him and start baiting the doubters. Comedy gold, it really is.

Bernie, Sorry but I have hidden a number of your posts. You do not strictly breach the rules but what you have written could be construed - and has been by Steven Gaal - as an insult. This is not a formal warning, but it would help if Steven is not wound up. Thanks. A message from the mods... So, I've not breeched the rules, it isn't a 'formal' warning but you've hid some of my posts so as not to wind Steven up?. James had you been paying attention to this thread earlier on you will see that I STRESSED I didn't want to get into a flame war with David who has been constantly baiting now for the last 15 pages. Many posts have highlighted that this was his intention all along as he had no answers to the questions asked. Once again he wins. And the forum loses. Why does this forum CONSTANTLY give in to aggressive time wasters who anyone can see merely want to divert attention and get people's posts banned? Well done David, you got out of that one. AGAIN!!!!!!!! It's a pathetic joke.

"We don't have to prove anything - YOU claim he was treated on the ship - YOU prove it or are you really that bad at this that we need to do that work for you as well?" "We don't have to prove anything." And there you have it. A perfect insight into why these flame wars occur. David believes that once you have a theory, any theory, the onus is not on the proponent to back it up with factual evidence but on the detractors to find ABSOLUTE PROOF that their narrative is incorrect. It goes like this... Fetzer says ALL the photographic records have been tampered with. So in David Joseph's world we must accept this to be true until we can refute, with absolute proof, EVERY single photo anomaly. Until that is done on a photo by photo basis we must have to accept that Fetzer's theory is correct. BS! Just because I haven't microscopically examined EVERY single photo and EVERY single frame in the photographic record my objection to that ridiculous theory is still valid. The onus is on Fetzer to provide the absolute proof. Not me! But Joseph's logic insists we must embrace it, and regard it as a truth, until every pixel has been discussed, debated, analysed and anguished over for a decade or two. That's what the H&L group want to do here. Bog us all down in minutiae. They've laid out a very intricate trench system and with typical siege mentality are bunkering themselves down on the basis that as long as there's no direct hit - they've won the war. It gets to a point where its worthless debating with them. Thankfully I have a life.

Here's the sum total of the tonsil debate culled from their website... In June, 1944, Marguerite Oswald left New Orleans and moved into a home she had purchased in Dallas, Texas. The following year 5-year old LEE Oswald had his tonsils removed. I kid you not. And this from a 10,000 word essay on 'both' their childhoods. If it is true what David keeps saying, that is, somehow his opponents aren't listening to the evidence he is providing on the tonsils issue, then why doesn't the website totally devoted to this theory say nothing more than "the following year he had his tonsils out"? You're right Greg he either wants us banned or failing that he'll gladly get himself banned. Either way he won't have to face more awkward questions. You'd think though, if you have to go to those extremes to keep alive a theory then maybe, just maybe, it's probably worth rethinking it. But David will be a full on devotee to this until John or Jim tells him to stop it and grow up!

Oh that's the reason he removed it off the website is it? Hey, me any you were talking about TONSILS!!!] I have never mentioned height in any of all this. So why throw that? Is it because you hope it will divert attention from the above question you refuse to answer? Talk about childishly predictable.

Which we are all sure you'd get nothing but jollies from... what does that site have to do with your inability to address this single item from that LONG list with evidence to back you? Parker wants us to believe they simply write down whatever comes to the Marine's mind when asked how much he weighs, how tall he is, what his blood pressure is, his eyesight and his hearing.... as opposed to actually measuring the marine for the results. Maybe via telepathy now that Radionics is such a favorite subject... Could be the Marines were doing ESP and transmission experiments which as a result shortens the subject by 2 inches in 4 years... while simultaneously lengthing his rifle by 4 inches... you boys have it all figgered out ... Don, you must be very proud of your man here! What a stupendous moderator you are! This forum has moderators???? But only when a member takes on a provocateur who's sole aim is to mislead, cause flame wars, divert attention and tell lies. Then the provocateur will be defended to the hilt and the frustrated member will be disciplined. I've seen it on here so many times now. That's why it's just better sticking to the facts. I've asked David numerous times why the H&L site has taken down all reference to the tonsil debacle. His lack of response speaks volumes. He's embarrassed. And he has every right to be. Let readers work out for themselves why he is more interested in hurling abuse than answering basic questions about his idiotic theory. I say 'his' theory, because David loves to wallow in all this as if it is his very own work. It isn't. He is just the bagman. David is a disposable used car sales rep that has added a big fat zero of his own to this whole sorry theory. What addition to H&L theory have you personally contributed to? NOTHING!!!! That's not your job: that's for the big boys. Your job is to stand at that parking lot and hustle punters into the showroom. But you can't even do that without insulting them!

Which we are all sure you'd get nothing but jollies from... what does that site have to do with your inability to address this single item from that LONG list with evidence to back you? Parker wants us to believe they simply write down whatever comes to the Marine's mind when asked how much he weighs, how tall he is, what his blood pressure is, his eyesight and his hearing.... as opposed to actually measuring the marine for the results. Maybe via telepathy now that Radionics is such a favorite subject... Could be the Marines were doing ESP and transmission experiments which as a result shortens the subject by 2 inches in 4 years... while simultaneously lengthing his rifle by 4 inches... you boys have it all figgered out ... Once again no answer to the question. Jim took it down because even he doesn't believe it anymore. You're on your own... But I'm sure you're used to that.

15% is much too high... the actual figure is 6.1%... I was being generous and proving you never read the work to begin with... You really are so full of yourself that you'll go to any lengths to show just how wrong you are... and then get all pissy-whiny about it to boot. You remain a skidmark on this community & thinking people everywhere... thanks for posting and continually proving it Long term outcome of tonsillar regrowth after partial tonsillectomy in children with obstructive sleep apnea. AbstractOBJECTIVE:We investigated the long-term effects of partial tonsillectomy, and potential risk factors for tonsillar regrowth in children with obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS). METHODS:Children affected by OSAHS with obstructive hypertrophic tonsils underwent partial tonsillectomy or total tonsillectomy with radiofrequency coblation. Polysomnography was performed prior to and 5 years following surgery. Blood samples from all participants were taken prior to and 1 month following surgery to assess immune function. All participants were interviewed 5 years following surgery to ascertain effects of the surgery, rate of tonsillar regrowth, and potential risk factors. RESULTS:All parents reported alleviation of breathing obstruction. Postoperative hemorrhage did not occur in the partial tonsillectomy group compared to 3.76% in the total tonsillectomy group. Tonsillar regrowth occurred in 6.1% (5/82) in children following partial tonsillectomy. Palatine tonsil regrowth occurred a mean of 30.2 months following surgery, and 80% of children with tonsillar regrowth were younger than 5 years of age. All five patients had a recurrence of acute tonsillitis prior to enlargement of the tonsils. Four of the five had an upper respiratory tract allergy prior to regrowth of palatine tonsils. There were no differences in IgG, IgM, IgA, C3, or C4 levels following partial tonsillectomy or total tonsillectomy. CONCLUSION:Partial tonsillectomy is sufficient to relieve obstruction while maintaining immunological function. This procedure has several post-operative advantages. Palatine tonsils infrequently regrow. Risk factors include young age, upper respiratory tract infections, history of allergy, and history of acute tonsillitis prior to regrowth. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved And where can we read of all this on the Harveylee website? Has the webmaster removed it? I wonder why... Losers... So you did read all that and still wasn't able to convey/remember the info correctly? Can't stay on topic for 5 minutes and can't man up when you're wrong... no wonder Parker likes you so much. As for Parker... luckily all one need do is read your work - between Asperger's and tonsils you really have made some amazingly weak arguments here. but that's obvious to all. ... C'mon Parker... use those Radionics you trust in and move something on my desk... Maybe your crazy women shortened Oswald by those 2 inches using her mind as well... As to the long list of H&L conflicts - all you seem to be able to muster is a bad reply to only one of them... Stick with the first point - show us how the USMC simply guesses or asks the marine his height, weight, vision, etc... when he both enters and leaves the Marines... This should be highly entertaining. btw - the Autopsy of LHO shows him to be 69" and 135 lbs... you'll let us know when and where you find out the USMC just wings it on this subject... Why is none of this now mentioned on the HarveyLee website? Who removed it and why? You must be absolutely furious with them for making you look so foolish as to defend a theory they have now quietly dropped. This is getting a bit like kicking a puppy.

15% is much too high... the actual figure is 6.1%... I was being generous and proving you never read the work to begin with... You really are so full of yourself that you'll go to any lengths to show just how wrong you are... and then get all pissy-whiny about it to boot. You remain a skidmark on this community & thinking people everywhere... thanks for posting and continually proving it Long term outcome of tonsillar regrowth after partial tonsillectomy in children with obstructive sleep apnea. AbstractOBJECTIVE:We investigated the long-term effects of partial tonsillectomy, and potential risk factors for tonsillar regrowth in children with obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS). METHODS:Children affected by OSAHS with obstructive hypertrophic tonsils underwent partial tonsillectomy or total tonsillectomy with radiofrequency coblation. Polysomnography was performed prior to and 5 years following surgery. Blood samples from all participants were taken prior to and 1 month following surgery to assess immune function. All participants were interviewed 5 years following surgery to ascertain effects of the surgery, rate of tonsillar regrowth, and potential risk factors. RESULTS:All parents reported alleviation of breathing obstruction. Postoperative hemorrhage did not occur in the partial tonsillectomy group compared to 3.76% in the total tonsillectomy group. Tonsillar regrowth occurred in 6.1% (5/82) in children following partial tonsillectomy. Palatine tonsil regrowth occurred a mean of 30.2 months following surgery, and 80% of children with tonsillar regrowth were younger than 5 years of age. All five patients had a recurrence of acute tonsillitis prior to enlargement of the tonsils. Four of the five had an upper respiratory tract allergy prior to regrowth of palatine tonsils. There were no differences in IgG, IgM, IgA, C3, or C4 levels following partial tonsillectomy or total tonsillectomy. CONCLUSION:Partial tonsillectomy is sufficient to relieve obstruction while maintaining immunological function. This procedure has several post-operative advantages. Palatine tonsils infrequently regrow. Risk factors include young age, upper respiratory tract infections, history of allergy, and history of acute tonsillitis prior to regrowth. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved And where can we read of all this on the Harveylee website? Has the webmaster removed it? I wonder why... Losers...

Steve did get one thing right. The military has it's own mail system and it seems all mail goes via San Fransisco. That point alone proves nothing in regard to where Oswald was treated between certain dates. It was their claim that "3835" is a code for "Japan". Clearly it isn't because we have NAS 955 also in Japan. NAS simply stands for Naval Air Station. They have been guessing about everything else. It seems to me it is no more complicated than having your home address noted on any other medical paper work. It's up to them to show that it was impossible for Oswald to receive medical treatment on the Skagit for something he was being treated for PRIOR to sailing to Taiwan and immediately AFTER returning to at Atsugi. Otherwise it's just more smoke. Hi Greg Here is a portion of the letter Steven tried to link us to. It is in response for evidence that NAS 3835 referred to Japan. One letter. Look at the address layout. Am I missing something here...? How does the number 3835 refer to BOTH Atsugi and the Californian postal HQ?

No Steven the number clearly refers to the Californian address. US NAVAL AIR STATION Navy Number 3835 c/o Fleet Post Office San Fransisco California But you STILL insist that the 3835 refers to Atsugi?? You posted a link no one could activate, (yet I found what you could have posted within 10 minutes!) Now we know why. Snake oil salesmen don't come into it!!

found that NAS NAVY 3835 is in ATSUGI Japan (GAAL No it isn't. And you all knew damn well it wasn't. No apologies required...

http://4375a6279342a3f4be11-cdccd2befed3f607afb3bb5ced5cc094.r24.cf1.rackcdn.com/1012.pdf OOPs!!!!!!!!!!!!! Note the address in the middle...! Can we now move on please?

What does the "c/ofpo San Fransisco", California" mean on the above envelope?

http://www.archives.gov/san-francisco/finding-aids/holdings-guide-08.html Records of the following Naval Air Stations (NAS), Naval Air Centers (NAC), and Naval Air Facilities (NAF): NAC 140, Espiritu Santo, New Hebrides Islands, 1943-1945 NAF 131, Noumea, New Caledonia, 1943-1945 NAC/NAF 145, Guadalcanal Island, Solomon Islands, 1943-1945 NAS 309, Palmyra Island, Line Islands, 1939-1947 NAF 807, Ebeye Island, Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands, 1944-1947 NAF 825, Roi Island, Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands, 1946 NAF 875, Oppama, Honshu, Japan, 1950-1961 NAS 939, Orote, Guam, Mariana Islands, 1945-1949 NAS 943, Agana, Guam, Mariana Islands, 1944-1960 NAS 955, Iwakuni, Honshu, Japan, 1952-1953 NAS 958, Kagman Point, Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, 1944-1947 NAS 961, Sangley Point, Luzon, Philippines, 1945-1949 NAF 1175, Naha, Okinawa, Ryukyu Islands, Japan, 1945-1952 NAF 1301, Canton Island, Phoenix Islands, 1943-1946 [now part of Kiribati] NAS 3220, Emirau Island, St. Matthias Islands, Bismarck Archipelago, 1944-1945 NAS 3245, Tanapag, Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, 1946-1950 NAF 3247, Tinian, Northern Mariana Islands, 1946-1947 NAF 3410, Moen Island, Truk Atoll, Caroline Islands, 1943-1947 NAS 3835, Atsugi, Honshu, Japan, 1950-1955 Seeing as the H&L club won't provide their links I'll do it for them. Now this could just well prove their point (on this matter at least). I really don't know. Nevertheless, because I simply want to know the truth then this must be faced. Unlike some others on here who slither and slide rather than face the facts. H&L NEVER show this level of honesty.

With your 15% in 5 year olds "probability", - David Josephs. How does this clown even tie his shoelaces in a morning? The 15% is YOUR figure!! Jeeeez!! I didn't think it was anywhere near that high until you posted the link proving it! Now you say it's only my "probability" that this happens. Why has it been taken down from Harveylee website then? That's the 5th time you've been asked that now. Keep up David, John's preferred spokesperson, Jim, has seen fit to remove it. I think you may need to vent your frustration on him instead of others on here. We didn't take it off your website! (Well, in a roundabout way we did...) Here is a lesson others on this forum could deploy in this situation. Clearly David, as usual, is looking for a flame war. He has been disciplined and warned on here countless times over the years by the mods for his aggressive argumentative style and he clearly has a strategy to incite anger from fellow forum members. Everyone on here can see that his argument has been well and truly trashed. Why bother arguing further? As he refuses to answer simple questions and changes the subject every time he gets bogged I don't see the point in engaging with him.

Is this the letter Steven?

So why not just post links that work to prove your point? Anyone can post a link to a non existent website to back up what they are saying. Your response is backed up by links to web addresses that no longer exist. Where is the relevant citation you were asked for to prove your point? Just provide a link, but to an existing address if that's not too difficult. I bet JA is pulling his hair out in despair at the shoddy quality of his lieutenants in general and Bombardier Steven Gaal in particular! Where's Hale-Bopp when you need it...?

The above post is to clarity what dog vomit is to hygiene. Has anyone on this planet ever completed reading one of Gaal's posts? The immense complexities of this entire case are nothing compared to spending half an hour trying to comprehend what on earth he is on about. It makes this forum look like a debating society for 3rd formers... Tin Foil Hat High School

"The tonsils were never removed. And the tonsils never removed might have grown back." Nowhere does anyone argue that tonsils not removed may have grown back. That's a disgraceful representation of what is being said and you know it! I can't help wondering now whether you are deliberately misunderstanding my position or wilfully distorting it. Let me be crystal clear. No one wants anything "both ways". As Tracy pointed out in a post just inches above yours: either they weren't taken out and that would explain how they were still there years later. OR, they were removed but grew back: a possibility confirmed by David as being 15% of every tonsillectomy, Or...ONE IN SEVEN! whichever you think sounds the 'smaller'. What is "both ways" about that? Astonishing that I'm being chided for pointing out two simpler alternative explanations for a seeming anomaly as wanting it "both ways". Yet you guys weave international decade long Cold War plots with doppelganger mothers and Hungarian immigrants and a cast of dozens all in on it to explain why he had tonsils when they were allegedly removed. Or, it is ONE of the above scenarios. That is, either not both But you knew that anyway...

Perfect. David's answer to No.1 is..."This does NOT happen 85% of the time, so therefore MUST be excluded as a possibility"!! Then insults me because I don't understand the stats... To No.2...? Well he has been asked many times to provide the proof they were ever taken out in the first place. Zilch. In between the passive aggressive condescension, instead of dealing with this lack of evidence, David will simply put the onus on you to provide proof that they weren't. And on and on it goes...

Or one can prefer the simpler explanations offered by DVP Hi Jon So, if you don't buy into the H&L theory that automatically puts you in the DVP camp? Seriously? You mention highly contrived but conclude that there are only two explanations - H&L or Lone Nutter. It's kind of insulting and exactly the mentality of cult-like behaviour. "You're either with us or you are against us!" This is a constant theme from some of the more vocal H&L group. That if you criticise any aspect of the H&L theory as described on their website or from their own contributions on here you will inevitably be labelled a LN or COINTELPRO. "In the Ptolemaic system, each planet is moved by a system of two spheres" (Wiki) Sounds familiar....(Is one of the spheres Hungarian?)

Jon I don't think the issue here is whether A - there's no proof that he ever had a tonsillectomy or B - he did but they grew back, like many do, and big enough that further infection can require yet another operation. You're missing the point. Opponents of H&L are simply trying to establish that there are much easier solutions to what seem like anomalies but more likely, as in this case, have a far more simpler explanation (either A or B ) than the wild assertions and conclusions drawn by H&L supporters. We have established now that they do grow back. David even accepted that by grudgingly noting that it "only happens in less than 15% of the time". So for every million children who have their tonsils removed, 150,000 will experience regrowth. So can we now have the proof that Oswald's were ever removed in the first place?

That's sweet. But it's also cruel. Jon, if only you knew how telling those patronising words of encouragement are... You see, David doesn't believe he needs any "urging" from anyone. Why would he? He's whooping us all out of the park! Including the CIA! You're not paying attention Jon... I'm sure he'll be seething that you have implored him to persevere, like the 1,500 metre runner who has just been lapped by every other competitor; for nothing more than to see some 'passion'. As Mark says...Cruel