Bernie Laverick

Again, more duplicity. It just goes on and on. A report that states the tonsils were "not enlarged", (that is - not big), is, staggeringly, used as evidence that 'Harvey' had a "full set" and thus couldn't possibly be the same person. "Not enlarged" = "Full set" in the H&L world. It's a house of mirrors... And for good measure we'll throw in another totally unrelated issue about heights to confuse the issue further... If Harvey and Lee supporters were a blues musician it would definitely be...Muddy Waters!

I remember the thread were Jack White was nailed bang to rights for his duplicity regarding his dubious involvement with Kudlaty. To defend the man's integrity and thus bolster his credibility as a witness Jack let slip that he had personally known Frank Kudlaty for nearly 50 years. Jack used this association with a witness, a witness he boasted he had known for a very long time, in order to stress just what an honest bloke Frank was, and thus should be believed. When challenged further on this "close" association Jack, realising he had now seriously compromised himself, did a complete U-turn and claimed he had only actually seen Kudlaty on two or three occasions in all that period. It is utterly ridiculous that we should not discuss the methods employed by researchers, alive or dead, who may have been selective with their presentation in order to promote a theory that we now can see may be false, or worse, faked. Don, should we never criticise the now deceased Arlon Specter's magic bullet theory and the duplicity involved in that? Of course we should. I often see Garrison's methods and conclusions being attacked on this forum. And why not? So to say that Jack White is out of bounds when subsequent research turns up a potentially explosive example of possible fraud is clutching at straws. As much as some interested/obsessed parties may want to wish this away either by ignoring it or using emotional manipulation as a diversion, others can see it for what it is.

Of course there are Bernie (I guess Greg needed more ROKC help so he called in the big guns) As predicted...I saw this and refused to read any further. First line in and the insults start, just as I had pre-warned. You're on your own David. I was hoping Jim may have wanted to engage. He seems a lot more knowledgeable about H&L than you and he doesn't have that abrasive aggression you import into all these discussions. I'm not biting! So I'd like to address the question directly to John Armstrong's 1st lieutenant and most eloquent exponent if that's ok? Jim is there any part of JA's work, which made it into the book, that in the light of new research may contain errors? If so, which? I hope you can respond with courtesy. I genuinely want to know whether you have ANY doubts whatsoever. Surely it would be highly unusual for someone to write a 1,000 page book on a subject of this complexity and over a 25 year period find that not one error has emerged that could offer a different explanation, wouldn't it? So what bits, with the benefit of hindsight, did JA get wrong?

Thanks for posting my bio, and thanks for the considered response. It isn't in any way an odd post, or disturbingly bizarre; perfectly normal in fact, like all your other ones Steven. Ok, back on Planet Earth, which small part of Harvey and Lee do you think Armstrong may have got wrong Steven? Or is absolutely everything rock solid, factually correct, and with not even one small piddling mistake? Do you have ANY criticism at all of his conclusions? If so, what? Hope you can provide an answer. Regards P.S. Posting my bio provoked me to take a brief look at yours. I notice you say you "follow the Lord". I bet his first name begins with a J!

Hi Don, in what possible context would you have ever found that out anyway? "Hey Don, how's it going buddy? It must be, what, twenty years...? Did you know that my tonsils grew back after I had that operation?" Seriously? I'm trying to work out just how socially inappropriate it would be to bump into someone years later and slip that info into the conversation. Lack of such a conversation does not prove your point. You don't flinch at the prospect of an on-going intelligence operation that picked two non-related 13 year olds - and a dopple-ganger mother - who miraculously entered adulthood with almost identical facial features, (enough to make all these witnesses positive it was Oswald at any rate), yet you blanche at the idea that tonsils may grow back! And cite personal experience as proof. The most pertinent question asked on this thread so far is this. Of all the coincidences, sightings, discrepancies, and 'confusing' documents...are there ANY that can be innocently explained? Or does EVERY single example fit into the Harvey Lee paradigm? Here's a non confrontational way of asking John Armstrong's supporters to lay out any doubts they may have with this or that portion of his story. Don has already said he can't see how it could possibly fit into what we now know about Oswald's means of escape. That's an honest admission Don. Maybe others have similar niggling doubts about one or two of the witnesses/documents etc... Or are we saying that not one single iota can be construed in any other way than that laid out by Armstrong? Because that would be unreasonable wouldn't it? All that work and not a single error? So where do his supporters think he may have erred? I've been here a few times before. I ask a reasonable question about this and instead of answers I will be showered with abuse...

It has always been my belief that if Oswald was downstairs anywhere on those steps (or near it) at the time, other employees would have mentioned seeing him there. There are no such reports. Well that's that then! Of course, had there been any witnesses we would not all be congregating on here 50 years later would we? So we have no official police reports about how the supposed 6th floor assassin was also stood on the 1st floor doorway at the same time the shots rang out. All things considered, wouldn't that have put quite a spoiler on using him as the patsy? Is it in any way possible that some employees did see him in that doorway but were robustly 'encouraged' to say otherwise? Are there any other examples in this case where witness testimony has been supressed, changed, or deleted because it didn't fit the required outcome? I think we all know the answer to that. What is interesting is that there are NO reports of ANYONE being there on those steps. How odd. Even our friend Wesley Frazier, who was stood inches from PM, says he can't remember who it was. Surely someone must have seen this man. Apparently not, so we can only conclude that this image isn't even of a human being let alone LHO. Had it been LHO rest assured that the good old squeaky clean DPD would have gotten to the bottom of it, told the truth and provided a "report" that proves their patsy is innocent. That they didn't do this proves it wasn't him? Great logic!

It has probably been ignored because all the best researchers have either left or been banned. What did you expect would happen?

And the point you are making is...? Telling someone who refuses to answer a question - or does so giving multiple contradictory answers on the hoof with NO reference to the book you are imploring me to read - that they don't have a clue is NOT an insult. It is an empiric fact! Hey Steven guess what, DAVID JOSEPHS is the only one who has had to be moderated because of his foul abusive and bullying language - now deleted by Kathy - so what does that say? And now he's at it again. I stand by my last sentence, you're not very nice people. Another empiric fact Frankly I've had enough of dealing with misfits and oddballs on here. I'd gone nealry two years without posting, without having to deal with Carlier, with Cinque, with Rago and all the other social pariahs that infest this webspace. Compared to the H/L cult they were quite informed and friendly people. Do you even know how ridiculous you all sound? Close it down John! Do it today! You lost the fight a few years ago;alll that remains are the cyber bullies with their foul mouthed insults and trumped up sense of their own importance. Bernie, In all fairness, there are some worthwhile contributors on this forum. James Richards, Larry Hancock, Bill Simpich, Bob Prudhomme, David Lifton, Greg Burnham, Sean Murphy (MIA), to name just a few. --Tommy Fair point Tommy, I accept that...but boy do you have to wade through some sewerage first though... This place is finished as a forum to have open and honest debate. It just seems to be infested with those who have a preconceived view and determined to ram it down out throats at every opportunity. It's the sheer dishonesty that gets me. You ask them one simple question and for four pages they point blank refuse to answer other than insults. Then realising how weak and pathetic that looks, five answers turn up at once - none of them from the H/L book btw - and all contradicting each other with outlandish suppositions made on the hoof. And yet from this they assume a haughty arrogance that gets more rancid with time. These self-appointed experts, like emperors on a throne, dispensing their wisdom on the one and only book that matters (except dawn of course who, staggeringly, still hasn't fully read it yet!) and presume a vomit inducing superiority. They have convinced no one and they have not come up with one letter of their own to add legs to this theory. If I was Armstrong I would be furious!!! THEY have completely trashed his work. Had it not been for the utter stupidity of some of the supporting posts I very well may have carried on believing this theory and would have eventually bought the book. But they have done such an appalling job promoting it; made such a hash of interpreting the evidence; been far to quick to lash out with bully-boy insults; that most people see the whole thing as nothing more than their extreme paranoia. As I say, Armstrong is probably furious! I refuse to engage with them any more. I'd rather eat my own feet!

And the point you are making is...? Telling someone who refuses to answer a question - or does so giving multiple contradictory answers on the hoof with NO reference to the book you are imploring me to read - that they don't have a clue is NOT an insult. It is an empiric fact! Hey Steven guess what, DAVID JOSEPHS is the only one who has had to be moderated because of his foul abusive and bullying language - now deleted by Kathy - so what does that say? And now he's at it again. I stand by my last sentence, you're not very nice people. Another empiric fact Frankly I've had enough of dealing with misfits and oddballs on here. I'd gone nealry two years without posting, without having to deal with Carlier, with Cinque, with Rago and all the other social pariahs that infest this webspace. Compared to the H/L cult they were quite informed and friendly people. Do you even know how ridiculous you all sound? Close it down John! Do it today! You lost the fight a few years ago;alll that remains are the cyber bullies with their foul mouthed insults and trumped up sense of their own importance.

From the man who can't open a book... look at source research or make a phone call in order to offer anything resembling an educated opinion - you wouldn't know right from wrong in the first place... and you speak of "serious"? you're the first to criticize others... on a subject you're proud to have never learned.. It's an embarrassment to be of the same species as the two of you... the more you post, the more you illustrate how completely worthless and pointless your contributions here are... you ought to be ashamed of yourselves but instead you beam with insane stupidity and then wear it as a badge indicative of your honor. this place has fallen to its depth because of the likes of the two of you... and rather than feel any remorse... all we can expect from the two of you is your never-ending mutual reach-arounds followed by the obligatory smokeless cigarette. --- way to go little boys... way to go No answers once again...just childish insults. What a mountainous intellect you are david.

A Flying Saucer Landed In The Stalker's Back Yard And It Was Just Chock Full Of Genetically-Altered Harveys And Lees And Harveys And Lees and, and ... " Tommy, you're getting good at this.,, That actually makes more sense. And anyway you didn't say that this is what happened you're just saying it's an OPTION!!!

Monty was impersonated so the ENTIRE H/L story must be true! (Laverick) Impersonation for intelligence purposes (as the Monty story "says" it was) gives the H/L idea credibility. If you don't know stop posting on this topic! (Laverick) ( A rudely presumptive remark) So which is it ? (Laverick) Why does it have to be one or the other ?? I said it was an option Staggering! So it was for intelligence purposes was it steven? Who would have thought? Here was me thinking it was for an appearance on X Factor! Monty making the Nazis thinking he was up to something else is absolute proof that H/L is true...great logic! They were just "options" were they? So, as I said, you obviously don't know what the real truth is; you are simply guessing. But if you, as a proponent of the theory, don't know the answers why should anyone take you seriously?

Oh Steven you do say some silly things. Tell me again about Monty and his double...Did they arrange this when they were 11?????????? Likewise with Sadam...was that doppleganger secured when they were both 11 and just happened to grow up looking identical? No one is saying that some people don't look similar. That is extremely disingenious. And what wacky logic. Monty was impersonated so the ENTIRE H/L story must be true! But you also throw in the isurance of it maybe being due to cosmetic surgery, extensive or not. So which one is it? You are the one posting on this theory. YOU have the onus to explain it. Not me. But you yourself don't even have a clue do you? You've admitted that by posing two possible scenarios. This is on top of the other three scenarios posted by your fellow congregationalists. So which is it? If you don't know stop posting on this topic! You are making yourself look more ridiculous than usual.

Is this the official Harvey Lee explanation then...? David J are you reading this? He's pulling your theory to pieces here and he's on your side! I am actually embarrassed for you all. How humiliating!

What is it with the Harvey & Lee flock and their garish use of fonts...?

"It would be interesting if the Harvey and Lee project was a covert project using genetics to form two identical twins in different mothers who were chosen because of their resemblance with the intention of penetrating the iron curtain for espionage." Albert Doyle DPF And yet another spadeful of undiluted idiocy. So we have the following as explanations... 1 - Lee and Marguerite were genetically modified... - A Doyle 2 - There was extensive facial surgery on one of them (or both...?) - S Gaal 3 - The technology for such subterfuge existed in the 1860's - S Gaal 4 - "11 yr olds often grow up looking similar" - DJ 5 - None of the above because David J has now declared that they didn't need to. They worked backwords from the late 50's AFTER they realised the similarity. I'm sure there will be other explanations. After all the originator of this thread has added nothing of substance (as usual), save lashing out at anyone who disagrees with her (as usual). Martin promised me he would give an answer but it never came.(as usual) As for David Healy, this guy used to regulalrly get his bottom spanked by Lamson on this forum. When Lamson can repeatedly spank your botty you just know it's probably time to give up!! Any answers David, other than insults...?

So we now have two proponents of the idea with completely alternative stories. It seems you guys simply put your hand in the hat and bring out whatever is likely to 'win' the discussion. Steven seems to think that the science was there from the 1860''s to pick two people from different countries and different families and guarantee they will emerge through adolescence looking identical. Brilliant! Are there no depths to the utter stupidity this theory has to drag along with it? But just in case we write that off as the kind of creepy oddball nonsense that apparently passes for research around here, he then kindly offers us a page from wiki on cosmetic surgery. No wonder people write us all off as freaks and imbeciles...! You're lagging behind the script Steven. Your guru has changed the story. It didn't now start from the early 50's; it started in the late 50's according to a recent "epiphany" by David Josephs, so no need for 1860's technology nor a page from wiki to explain this phenomenon. There's simply no need. The top brass has changed tactics...Come on. catch up! I'm going to brush up on some Victorian literature...to see if I can get to the bottom of quantum mechanics...!

As I said Bernie... the records were falsified so they work...no real big mystery there... but you stop short of the entire CONFLICT section of the post... BJHS is not an island.. it interconnects with a bunch of other evidence from that exact time period, to dismiss that and try to reconcile it on its own is the same as looking at three cartridges on the floor and calling it a day. During the SPRING SEMESTER of 1954 he is living at both 126 Exchange and 1454 St Mary's... he is both loud and large at Lillians as well as small and quiet on Exchange... I really recommend that you read Myrtle Evans' testimony to see how she describes LEE and MO... Lillian Murret's as well... Maybe also watch the DeRouse interview... ===== We needn't agree Bernie... it was I who lead us down the analytical path regarding the days of the school year that evidence represents... you didn't take us there Bernie... you didn't use it as an agument against me... all it took was a 53-54 calendar, an article about the NYC school year and some counting... I COULD BE WRONG about the NOLA school year... the info I posted was for NYC, no NOLA... So how about doing some work and telling us when the NOLA school year actually started, actually ended and match that to the BJHS records... develop an argument on your own and defend it... I think that's fair, don't you? Instead, I did that and freely admit that the BJHS evidence is not necessarily indicative of a conflict, but it is not exactly complete now is it, as I just said regarding the NYC school year.... what follows does show conflict though... if, by law there are at least 180 days in the school year (which we DO have evidence for)... the 54-55 records are in conflict stating there were only 168. Add further that 12 days absent is not shown on a single grade card... not one Bernie.. where does "12" come from? It's as if the 12 and 168 are there just to add to 180.... why do you suppose the information from those 54-55 grade cards is not accurately represented in the final record of one Oswald, Lee from 807 French St? ===== I will add one more thing to this - Louise Robertson, a maid hired by MO while living in NYC made a statement to the FBI... you aware of that... and those implications? I would appreciate you not thinking I am goading you on about the evidence and lack of time or effort to uncover the information on your own. It is not just talk when I say that the volume of information is monumental.. yet you dismiss it as unnecceary time and effort... which is your right, but please don't expect to be taken seriously when everyone else is doing your work... and you proudly proclaim your desire NOT to look for yourself... not to follow-up yourself... To me, and many others, it appears lazy and provides baseless, argumentative, chatter from a partially informed pundunt... rather than someone debating with facts culled from their own analysis and follow-thru. DJ Ok, fair points: I need to brush up on more of the evidence before I make any more comments. I accept that. At some point though David i would like to hear your take on the Mcwatters 'escape' scenario: I believe, though I could be wrong, that Armstrong relies heavily on it being true. But that can wait. Let me absorb what's been written, take a close look first hand at the evidence, and we can hopefully continue taking it one issue at a time. Agreed?

I read most of the book years ago. Am re-reading it. I see that your bio tells us zero about you. Why is that not a surprise? Good bye. To quote David Healey "xxxxx on". I will not read any future posts from you. It's abundantly clear why you are here. Dawn. And without a hint of irony Only most of it...? Yes good bye Dawn ....wall...head...brick http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=6223 #edit to insert bio link

With regards to BJHS... I wonder if you;ve done this analysis? The transfer date was 1/13/54.. Each of the school years has a FALL, SPRING and TOTAL We have two grade cards from the FALL of the 53-54 school year... yet it states he did not start attending until January 13, 1954. On one card there is 1 absence, the other has 2 for that same time period.... According to this article from NYC the school year was starting on Sept 14, 1953.. and ending June 29th. Would this be the same for NOLA? I was unable to find the dates for NOLA, yet we can make an assupmtion and see where that takes us.... We agree that this child attended all of the SPRING semester... total possible attendance 90 days, as you posted... 90 days prior to June 29th is February 23rd... so, ok... subtract for a few holidays (7 for spring break is now Feb 15th, and a few single day holidays) We are now at Tuesday, Feb 9th as the START of the spring semester. which may make sense since LEE starts on Jan 13, 1954... attends the end of the FALL semester in PE and Science, and gets two 70's. 90 days prior to Feb 9 is Oct 6th... remove Xmas holiday and Thanksgiving plus a few single day holidays and we are at Sept 16th... very reasonable starting date given what was written about NYC schools... I don't understand. Let's just stay with the Beaureguard records for now and allow me to return on the other parts later. I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make. Other than mine! He started, as you have correctly stated, on the 13th January a full month before the start of the spring semester. So as well as his 90 days minus four absences for the Spring semester he also has an attendance record for the fall semester too. And in the only month he attended of that fall semester, that is early January to early February, he took one day off! We have two grade cards from the FALL of the 53-54 school year... yet it states he did not start attending until January 13, 1954. Yes that's right, he attended the last 4 weeks of the Fall semester. So he has grades and absences in the Fall and in the Spring. You actually then go on to explain this... We are now at Tuesday, Feb 9th as the START of the spring semester. which may make sense since LEE starts on Jan 13, 1954... attends the end of the FALL semester Nothing in the Beareguard record implies he started before the 13th January 1954. Nothing.

"...and learned years ago that arguing with non believers is like dealing with flat earthers..." Dawn I don't want to argue with you; I don't even particularly want to debate with you either. I really don't feel you know enough about the theory so as to explain its constituent parts. David J has clearly read the book inside out and I dare say can claim expertise on its contents; at first glance he puts a convincing case. The onus is on you to be an expert on H&L. Not us. It's your theory. You should own it. If others come along and find inconsistencies in the interpretation of the evidence it's not good enough to hold your hands over your ears close your eyes and shout "xxxxx" Refusing to debate your point with someone because they don't share your narrow view is shallow beyond belief. I take heart that anyone who happens upon this thread uncommitted to this debate will see that the desperate evasion, the abuse, and the name calling have all come from the H&L corner and none of it has been reciprocated by the "Non Believers". Bernie PS...Finished reading the book yet Dawn...?

So let me get this right, because the story had now changed somewhat hasn't it? You don't know what the original purpose of this pairing was and you now concede that the operation doesn't go as far back as you have all been saying it did. Is this the official H/L explanation? Or are you just thinking on your feet David? This would be fine, but as you have said, it's all about the evidence. Though I am pleased that in a previous post you were honest enough to say that "Armstrong speculated" with the evidence he had to hand. That's a start. You also admitted that he is "only human", but none of us really needed reminding of that... So for instance when you cite Oswald's height as going to 4' 9" from 5' 4" in one term....you see that as being supsicious. If it were true it would be. But you are mistaken David. You have read 5 FOOT 4 when really it is 54 INCHES, that is, 4' 6". You also misrepresented the attendance figures for Beaureguard JHS. The records show a total possible attendance of 89 and 90 days respectively for the two semesters. Yet you have interpreted this as total days ATENDANCE. Not true. To find the attendance one simply subtracts the absences from the total days available. Of course, looking at it through this prism creates a conflict in the records and therefore...a doppleganger. I also believe Frank Kudlaty is a compromised witness. He was an old mucker of Jack White (who admitted that he was responsible for tracking him down for Armstrong). Jack underlined Kudlaty's honesty and integrity by highlighting his personal knowledge of the man. When Jack was called out on this, conscious that he had now created a huge conflict of interest, he backtracked and said he'd hardly had any contact with him for over 50 years. No mention of their former relationship exists in H/L. When one of the witnessess has a connection to one of the researchers...you have to balance that evidence accordingly. When you don't balance the evidence you end up with Oswalds all over the place. Despite firmly believing he was being impersonated just prior to and during the assassination, there is simply not enough evidence to weave such an intricate story as H&L. And what evidence has been presented is flawed and misrepresented. But we have made progress. Because from now on we won't be hearing about a plot hatched in the early 50's to meld two individuals identities. You are now saying that the impetus for this came much later on in the deacade, after he joined the army. Then they backtracked with the school records and photos to make it 'fit'. David, are you sure this isn't just an improvised flurry, like a Keith Richards guitar lick on "Shine a Light"...? (maybe "Paint It Black" would be a better analogy) Thanks for responding... Best, Bernie

Posted 03 April 2013 - 06:56 PM David Josephs wrote.... Yes indeed... the silence of those not wishing to engage in discussion that MIGHT show their conclusions to be suspect... or not entirely supported by the evidence offered. Wasn't it the WCR commissioners and supporters who said... "We've demolished all arguments that anyone but Oswald was guilty and we are NOT going to discuss it or argue about it. We're not interested as our conclusion is our conclusion... and there is no valid rebuttal to be had... so don't even bother..." Fine words David, but shouldn't you practise what you preach and answer the awkward questions? So far I have asked Martin, Dawn (who, staggeringly, also hasn't read the full book!!!) David Healy and yourself. All I have encountered so far, apart from the constant insults, is "the silence of those not wishing to engage in discussion that MIGHT show their conclusions to be suspect..." Please look up the word 'irony'!

Why is it muck-raking to ask pertinent questions? And, I repeat, it is only David Joseph's posts that have been edited by moderators. What does that say? Ok David, perhaps you know the answer to why the two chosen adolescents from different countries and different families would grow up looking so identical over a ten year period. It is precisely because you cannot answer this you are resigned to squealing "xxxxx" every time someone asks it. Just because you can't answer simple questions regarding your own cherished theories does not make me a "lone nut xxxxx". it just makes you all look very dishonest. #edit typo we await your future book concerning LHO and his many faces, Bernie. Till then, xxxxx on... No answer from you either, what a surprise. I ask you a question. You call me a xxxxx. Why does everyone have to be an "expert" or an "author" to ask a simple question? If David Joseph's knowledge of all this is so outstanding then why doesn't he make me look foolish and simply answer the question?

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t717-claims-claims-and-more-claims#7923 This has been done over and over again David. It has been explained in specific detail, as in the above post, but you refuse to budge...