Bernie Laverick

Ok, here we go, the predictability is astonishingly disturbing. It goes like this. The CIA are capable of some very weird out of the box operations. So because the whole H&L concept is weird and out of the box that PROVES it must be the work of the CIA! And anyone who thinks differently is clearly COINTELPRO or a WC apologist. Running out of tin foil yet Steve?

Hang about here...Yes, this is spookily coincidental, that's why it has been posted: because the chances are very slim. (A lot slimmer than tonsils growing back at any rate...) But imagine how spooky it would have been were they both, from adolescence, unwittingly involved in some complex intelligence plot to meld two people's identities' paperwork and records - theirs - for some Cold War espionage scenario...and they both grew up looking like this!!! That's what H&L crew believe is the likely explanation for their story. At least these two separate people actually exist. We can see them. On video. Not witness statements. We don't need to discuss their tonsil status. Nor their school records. Two unrelated people grow up to have almost identical facial features. Yep, a staggering coincidence, it really is. (Though I do note that the one on the right definitely has sloping shoulders). Now weld a plot of gigantic proportions with one of the above unknowingly, or not, setting up the other for the assassination of the century. Laughable.

That's what I enjoy about the minions... don't bother them with actual evidence, actual research studies, actual stats. And then they call the corroborating evidence what I "think", not what the Nat'l Inst of Health has to say... Less than 15% of the time in children with a mean age of 5, and it usually occurs within 3 years of the operation... You guys must really HATE it when actual evidence trumps your speculation and opinions... "Less than 15% of the time in children with a mean age of 5, and it usually occurs within 3 years of the operation..." WHAT "usually occurs within 3 years" David? Regrowth? is this what you are trying to prove? That regrowth only occurs in less than 15% of children with a mean age of five? So this your rock solid proof that regrowth of tonsils couldn't possibly happen? Because only 15% of children experience that? This is a deliberate wind up or a desperate attempt to create a firewall. Sorry, but I'll just politely stick to the facts. Tonsils regrow. It's pure baiting because you have humiliatingly lost the argument. Then you actually take a haughty condescending swipe at "minions" who's sole point is this...TONSILS CAN REGROW AFTER REMOVAL!! Can you point me to where on the extensive HarveyLee site this tonsil issue is given any prominence? Do you agree it should be removed or hidden?

Whichever way you cut it, tonsils regrow. I don't care how rare you think that may happen. It happens. But you desperately NEED it not to happen. Otherwise yet another brick in the wall crumbles to dust. So you've got big chips on this game of craps. Ok, you have grudgingly accepted regrowth does happen but now, according to you, it has to be rare and the regrowth must be small. Not according to 100's of people I found within 30 minutes on the web. Now you or Steve will almost certainly accuse those sites as not having any relevance or credibility; that the 100's of anguished people asking how their tonsils could have regrown (many awaiting a further operation) is proof of COINTELPRO planting these questions in order to put David Josephs off the plot. So you think the odds are small...? Why don't you just ask your search engine "I think my tonsils may be growing back" and see what comes up. I swear, you'll be bored rigid by the constant repetition of what you'll see. Total confirmation that tonsils do grow back and some to full size. But we all know you won't do that don't we David? You'll conclude that all the respondents are CIA plants and can't be taken seriously, so I just know I'm wasting my time even thinking you'll check out what I posted earlier. No, you'll cling for dear life to the lesser damaging infinitesimally small odds and size of regrowth. Because if not that, then...? Whither H&L? Funny you missed it out of that huge list you wrote earlier. And has it now been removed from the HarveyLee website?

Which from the following list didn't know about the H&L subterfuge according to JA's book? CIA James Angleton* Bernard Barker George H.W. Bush Charles Cabell Ann Goodpasture Richard Helms* E. Howard Hunt* David Phillips* Sergio Arcacha Smith* (assassin) Frank Sturgis Dallas PoliceJesse CurryGus RoseFBIC.D. DeLoachJ. Edgar HooverJames HostyGordon ShanklinLBJCliff CarterMalcolm WallaceMediaHugh Aynesworth (CIA asset)Priscilla Johnson McMillan (CIA asset)Oswald Family & FriendsLillian MurretMarguerite Oswald “Historic”Marguerite Oswald “Imposter”Marina Oswald (KGB)Robert OswaldMichael Paine (CIA asset)Ruth Paine (CIA asset)American Embassy MoscowRichard Snyder (CIA asset)John McVickar (CIA asset)Allen Dulles* Gerald Ford Earl Warren Have I missed anyone out?

Oh no! He's gone an told the gaffer! Some of us may be doing a bit of detention next week!

Firstly, if you'd have bothered to read the links to the copious amounts of people complaining of tonsil regrowth right now you wouldn't say such moronic things. The probability is not very low. That is a lie. Admit it! Secondly, even if it is as you say...then, erm, why has it been removed from the Harley Lee website? And why didn't David mention it on his exhaustive list? What, because there is a "low probability" the information may be wrong? Could it be that?

How Marina amazingly meets both Webster and Harvey along with her backstory Nothing amazing about this whatsoever, and in no way does this story imply two Oswalds. Marina was 'defector bait'. No doubt she was trained and instructed to 'make their acquaintance': such subterfuge does happen David, honestly. And it makes sense that the KGB would want to keep a very close eye on any 'defectors'. This is the only explanation as to why Marina could possibly have known two American defectors who coincidentally arrived within days of each other. The odds are just too high on it being a coincidence. So how does this PROVE there was a Harvey and there was a Lee?

I agree and I also agree with what Mr. Kelly said a while back in another thread: As a researcher, John Armstrong has made many contributions. But it's the "dogma" part and the conspicuous zeal of his followers that make it seem like he founded a religion as well. A cult, perhaps. That can bog one down. No "dogma" needed... just some common sense and a pair of eyes... So you also don't have an "alternative" answer to the question of how a 5'4" 6th grader becomes a 4'10" 8th grader... or a 5'11" 20 year old becomes a 5'9" 24 year old... How a boy attends 129 days of school between March 23 and May 30 while spending weeks at Youth House How his brother Pic can correctly choose Harvey from his brother in every case Why Robert lied about his NYC visits Who Louise Robertson is and why she contacted the FBI or became involved with the Oswalds at all Why the handwritten notes show North Dakota yet the final article changes it to NO... Why the FBI sends agents to Stripling Jr High on the morning ot 11/23 Why the FBI needs to speak with Pfisterer's employees about a job he supposedly had 6 years before, the week after the assassination Why Myra Rouse would make things up that amazingly corroborates the Youth House reports and the major differences between Lee and the boy playing Harvey. How Anna Lewis could have met Lee Oswald in February 1962 when Harvey was in Russia How trusted DPD sources puts Ruby and Lee together in all sorts of compromising situations along with Shaw and Ferrie How Oswald is both with his family and trying to over pay for rifles from McKeown How Oswald is proven to be both in Dallas and NOLA concurrently during the summer of 1963 How he can both be in Ping Tung and Atsugi concurrently How an Oswald is working for Pfisterer's while an Oswald is in the Marines How he can be with Allen Felde thru May yet be in Jacksonville at the same time How Major Gorsky has records of Lee Oswald leaving the Marines in March 1959 with all his records sent to DC. How Lee is in the 1000 series platoons (those attending radar school) while Harvey is platoon 2060 How Oswald can be working for both Tujagues in NOLA and ETI Realty in San Diego in the fall & winter of 1955 How he skips school to work at Dolly shoe yet shows near perfect attendance at BJHS Which PS #117 & #44 did OSwald attend - NYC, Bronx or Queens Why the southern boy entering 7th grade did not have a southern accent after living his entire life in either NOLA or TX What the story surrounding 2220 Thomas might be given that Marg was there in 1947, 54-55 and on Nov 22, 1963 Who Alan Graf was and why scores of marines who were with Harvey were never interviewed or called to testify Why the WCR considers the two separate Marine bases in Southern Califoria (El Toro & Santa Ana) as the same place How Marina amazingly meets both Webster and Harvey along with her backstory How in July 1963 while Harvey and family are in NOLA, Marshall Hicks delivers telegrams to "Lee Harvey Oswald" at the Rotary apartments which Ruby rented for Lee Why William Crowe, Wally Weston, Dixie Lynn, and Kathy Kay claim that Lee worked for Ruby in Dallas all thru the summer of 1963 Who it was that Yates drives to Elm/Houston with a 4 foot "rifle shaped" package talking about Ruby and the shooting of the president on Nov 20th Why both an SMU professor and his friend, living next to Ruby claim that Lee Oswald came to their door in the evening of 11/21 looking for Ruby.. the professor's friend wrote a letter to Ramsey Clark about it Why Mary Lawrence claims that Oswald came to her restaurant at 2:15am 11/22 and Ruby joined him shortly afterward - Harvey is in Irving at the time asleep How Helen Forrest and James Pennington see a white shirted man leaving the TSBD and enter a Rambler and both ID the man as Oswald Why Belin changed Craig's testimony of the same activity to confuse the issue further How can one person have his tonsils surgically removed yet still be there years later? I'll cross it out for you David seeing as you now don't need that sentence anymore. Any reason you missed it out of the above list?

This is ridiculous! This is a combination of two simple things. One - The left image has his hands in front of him, the right image has them behind his back; different postures. Add to that...David's sneakiness in pinching a few mm here and a few mm there to make the gradient seemingly more acute. Note how he chooses the top of the collars as his start point. Very sneaky. The left image's collar is flat and therefore lower, along with both arms being in front of him, this gives a square-ish appearance. However, by starting the line on the right image half way up his neck (on top of the much higher collar), and along with the natural 'sloping' that occurs when you 'stand at ease' he gets to see what he wants to see. Who on this forum knows anyone with shoulders like that!? Other than on a Cluedo board! (That's a game people play with their kids...)

"Where again is ANYTHING you've done on your own? Looks to me all you do is parrot Parker while bobble heading.... the family must be so proud..." This is a joke surely? And from a man whose sole point of existence is to hawk someone's else's work. The jealousy is simply dripping off every post. Is this why you feel the need to mention "Parker" in such a clearly envious manner. Middle child were you David...?

"...and the other whose partial record appears here... Terrible understanding yet somehow can read and write with some proficiency... just enough to get him recommended as an Aircraft Mechanic..." "Would you post the information that proves he took the time to learn to read/write the language while in the Marines or before, yet had poor proficiency... doesn't usually work the other way around where you can understand and speak a language and then one learns the grammar and syntax rules?..." I understand that Spanish is far easier to learn than Russian and I can only speak from personal experience here. As I said above, initially I read copious amounts of self-help Spanish language books and within a year was quite knowledgeable about its rules and its grammar and could read and write it a lot better than I could speak it, or understand it being spoken. That took hard real-life experience with real Spanish people in real Spanish situations. All that knowledge yet at first they couldn't understand a word I was saying, nor me them. I have no proof of where he learned to speak Russian. I just know it is entirely consistent to be very rusty when first speaking a new language but, if you have STUDIED it you will definitely be more competent with the grammar at first. Ok David, if for some reason you found yourself living in Mexico for a couple of years you would almost certainly pick up the language organically and not necessarily need to know about the grammar. But if you STUDY a language you can't get past level 2 without first learning its rules. Right?

Sounds exactly like a man quite knowledgeable of the language but lacking the confidence and experience in using it. Unlike George DM's account of his abilities three years later, where clearly he had improved considerably. I was exactly the same when I lived and worked in Spain for two years. Prior to going I studied intensely and was dismayed when I got there to realise how much of it I didn't fully understand. It took a few weeks to find my rhythm, and to find my confidence. I kind of understood the questions asked of me but already was too concerned in correctly formulating the answers. I knew it, I just couldn't recall and translate it all quick enough.The above scenario reminds me very much of those first few weeks. Again, a much simpler explanation.

I know I'm not allowed to use the word moronic so I won't go there. Can some moderator please take a look at this. It is just making this forum a laughing stock. Do we have to put up with this deliberate baiting? Listen carefully Steven. I am saying JACK WHITE tried to bolster Kudlaty's credibility among some of this theory's detractors on here by saying he had known him for 50 years and could personally vouch for his integrity. I believe him, there is no reason to suspect Kudlaty of anything improper, but what do I know? I know this much, the person telling me this about Kudlaty was a chief collaborator of Armstrong's who supported the two Oswald theory and personally knew the witness in question for over 50 years. PLEASE FIND THE DISCLOSURE IN H&L THAT CONFIRMS THIS ASSOCIATION. The word "Fraud" was originally used in reference to the doctored photo Jack white used...as you well know. Should there be a minimum level of comprehension skills allowed on this forum surely?

I've been doing this for over 10 years watching the coming and going of sourceless, argumentative trolls pretending to be researchers for the sole purpose of disrupting forum communities - not that I think you fall into that category in the least... if you spend time dealing with them as I have, one wonders if there is any reason for their existence other than to cause problems for people trying to have discussions and share info. Tactic number 32. Start shrieking the word "xxxxx" when you can't provide the evidence to support your conclusions. Why is it such a toxic question to ask you to support the premise that the USMC were definitely measured (as opposed to a self reported measurement) with some citation? It's your theory. It's up to you to defend it. But you don't want to be challenged on this theory. You feel grossly offended that others can even think of pointing out the many obstacles in its way and that you should be given a free ride. "Don't like my stuff? Don't read it. " Great advice. But wouldn't that make having a forum pointless? Do you not make comments on threads that promote a theory you profoundly disagree with? Of course you do. So why can't I? That this one has many more posts and members that disagree with you is not evidence of some COINTELPRO op, or that it is a "hand-picked biased audience"; you just aren't convincing people that you're theory has any legs, let alone any integrity.

Wow! Class hissifit! Nigel Farage did this a few days before our recent general election. Farage is the leader of the far right UK Independence Party and he appeared on a live BBC debate with all the other party leaders. Every time he said something utterly ridiculous or bigoted like "Foreigners come here to get free HIV treatment" the audience were predictably disgusted and groaned, or booed. Frustrated by this response he went on a hissifit rant and whinged that the BBC had hand selected a " biased, left wing audience". Rather than just simply accepting he was speaking a load of tosh that no one was buying into, he lashed out at them and insulted their integrity instead. He didn't win his seat! And you haven't won this one David. In fact, in parliamentary parlance - you've lost your deposit!

"...so your regrowth theory remains such - a theory with very poor odds of occurring after the first 3 years of the operation... and it is much more likely that when combined with all the other H&L evidence that one man had tonsils (Harvey) and one didn't..." DJ You may close your eyes and cover your ears when confronted with 'awkward' facts but readers of this thread will see exactly what has been presented. That is, copious evidence that tonsils do grow back. And most within months of the operation. So where do you get your "with very poor odds of occurring after the first 3 years of the operation." when so many examples have been posted of people right now complaining of full tonsil regrowth? "Russian doctors see normal tonsils" Actually, Russian doctors saw Oswald's tonsils were "not enlarged", according to a translation of unknown origin. This is not pedantry. They weren't checking them to see if they had grown back. They were checking them to rule out tonsillitis. And what they found was that weren't "enlarged". Even though those examples we posted earlier on prove conclusively that tonsils do indeed grow back to full size. That you don't want to see this evidence doesn't mean other readers will do the same. They have no axe to grind either way. They will either accept your interpretation of two tonsillectomies as being proof of an elaborate Cold War plot involving doppelgangers (one with tonsils and one without) and doppelganger's mothers (tonsil status unknown) covering a decade of two adolescents' lives, who coincidentally grow into adulthood with identical facial features, with a vague plot to set one of them up for an assassination that hadn't then even been plotted. OR...they may conclude that Oswald was one of the 1,000's of people who's tonsils simply grew back. I'll leave it to the intelligence of those looking on here for some historical truths to make their own minds up. "You still think they just asked all the Marines how tall they were when discharged...?" Once again, just for good measure David throws another curveball into the mud with the height issue. Why not concentrate and stick to one subject at a time? Is it because when you do the whole H&L just crumbles to dust? You'll now bang on about the height issues until someone asks you, once again, to provide evidence that they were measured by USMC, and then you'll go on a sabbatical, returning only to harangue us about the Stripling records, or Taiwan or anything but the information asked for. So where's the cite that says they were measured...?

"Never ever have I seen any proof of fraud re Frank Kudlaty." Correct. There isn't any. "Opinion yes of fraud but no proof. GAAL" No Steven you haven't even seen any opinion of his fraud. Because NO ONE has ever accused him of that. Do you ever read any of these posts? We are suggesting that Jack White is the guilty party for touching up a photo so as to make a 'better' distinction between the 'two Oswalds'. Armstrong had the original photo image that Jack worked from and therefore must have known that the one posted on the H&L website was incorrect, but he said nothing. Now deal with that. Plus, you earlier casted aspersions about the reliability of data that proves men in particular over-report their height. You were shown multiple links that prove just this point. But you guys have just two responses when faced with facts and evidence. Run away. Or change the subject.

Exactly Mark. And let's not overlook the small fact of him being married to a Russian as well.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=566220&fileId=s1368980002000782 "...Results: Spearman rank correlations between self-reported and measured height, weight and BMI were high. Height was overestimated by a mean of 1.23 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11–1.34) cm in men and 0.60 (0.51–0.70) cm in women..." - Cambridge Journal http://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(02)00708-5/abstract Results "Self-reported heights at Time 1 and Time 2 were highly correlated, and the mean difference between height at Time 1 and Time 2 was small. Results were similar for self-reported weight at Time 1 and Time 2 and body mass index (BMI) calculated from these values. Although self-reported values of height, weight, and BMI were highly correlated with their measured values, on average, students over reported their height by 2.7 inches and underreported their weight by 3.5 pounds. Resulting BMI values were an average of 2.6 kg/m2 lower when based on self-reported vs. measured values. The percentages of students classified as “overweight” or “at risk for overweight” were therefore lower when based on self-reported rather than on measured values. White students were more likely than those in other race/ethnic groups to over report their height, and the tendency to over report height increased by grade. Female students were more likely than male students to underreport their weight." Can we put this to bed now Steven? Men/boys lie about their size. Ask any woman!

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=566220&fileId=s1368980002000782 "...Results: Spearman rank correlations between self-reported and measured height, weight and BMI were high. Height was overestimated by a mean of 1.23 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11–1.34) cm in men and 0.60 (0.51–0.70) cm in women..." - Cambridge Journal

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v24/n5/full/0801233a.html International Journal of Obesity (No doubt a part of COINTELPRO!) "...Self-reported height, meanwhile, is consistently overreported, particularly in older adult populations, and men generally overreport to a greater degree than women..."

http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Had-My-Tonsils-Removed-And-They-Grew-Back/995794 Lots of examples here, and yes, some DO regrow to full size. And by the many readers' comments of personal experience it seems to happen within months of the surgical procedure to remove them. Tonsils do grow back. There are simply 100's of people on the net who are asking this question with reference to their own experience, many of which are once again suffering with tonsillitis and needing further surgery. Having two surgical operations for the same ailment is not in any way suspicious or indicative of a carefully laid out cold war intelligence plot to combine the lives of two adolescents (who, fortuitously for the planners, also grew to have almost identical facial features), in order to use one of them as a patsy in the undefined future for a plot that hadn't at that stage even been planned. When you strip away this hysterical paranoia and remove the tin-foil-hat melodrama you're left with what are, in all likelihood, much better explanations for these seeming anomalies. His tonsils grew back; like many other people's do. (That is if they were ever removed in the first place. Either way...) Bare this in mind, if it is fully accepted that tonsils can and do grow back, (sometimes to their original size), it would be a crushing blow to Armstrong's theory and so its adherents will fight this tooth and nail. Do any of these supporters have the decency to show a little humility from time to time and accept that maybe there are simpler explanations for a lot of the evidence you use to arrive at your conclusions. I asked this earlier and characteristically I didn't receive a reply. Is there anything in the H&L book that you now believe, with the benefit of 25 years extra research, may have an innocent explanation and doesn't necessarily fit into the H&L narrative? Did Armstrong get anything wrong? If so, what?

David, have you now become a bit bored with the subject of this thread? I have seen this tactic employed so many times now there should be some ruling on it. This topic is about a spurious image that may have fraudulently entered into the evidence by one of Armstrong's researchers and collaborators to back up his H&L theory. When cornered on any single aspect of this theory its supporters do exactly what David has attempted to do now. Change the subject. It's not about his height, but it does take the heat off trying to explain this photo. And if anyone took the bait and subsequently nailed you on the height issue too, you would simply change tack and bang on about his schooling records, and so on and so on. Whack-a-mole!

He was clearly capable of brazenly lying about the status of his relationship with Kudlaty. I'll try and find the topic and post a link so you can see for yourself. It's a car crash! I never took Jack seriously after that. He went all Fetzerish. Maybe it's disrespectful of us to question his integrity when he's not here to defend himself. But where would that leave us? Would the work of Cinque or Fetzer be out of bounds and never to be criticised if or when they die? Did Jack make a policy of not criticising the work or the integrity of previous passed away researchers? Of course he didn't, and neither should we. If that's where the evidence leads us Don, then we need to know. Burying our heads in the sand out of some misplaced sense of righteous indignation is yet another trait of the H&L fraternity...