Bernie Laverick

This is a lesson to others on here who never show their hand but post barbed comments aimed at members who simply don't accept someone else's wacky theory. You're not allowed to do that apparently. By this logic of course we should just leave Robert's theory unanswered and not be "disruptive" "vermin", (as the likes of Michael Clark accuse others of), by pulling it to pieces. Hypocrites!

As usual, we get the same old responses. Why can't people open their minds and see that the American intelligence services were capable of doing anything in order to achieve their goals? They apparently once gave LSD to some of their own soldiers just to see what the affects would be, so switching Moorman in broad daylight would pose no problem at all. It is SO obvious that these are two different Moormans. I believe it was part of an ongoing intelligence plot involving these two women who were chosen at childbirth to act as body doubles should there be a need to infiltrate one of them into the USSR. Remember, the evidence IS the conspiracy. And here, the evidence is overwhelming! Mary Ann Moorman did the shooting. Ann Mary Moorman posed as a member of the public. They both had a doppelganger mother too! So how many of you naysayers have actually read ALL of Robert's work? None I bet. And yet you feel you have the right to come here and rubbish this man's research without the basic humility to check ALL his work out. Don't just go by what he presents here because that won't tell you anything. You have to read EVERYTHING he wrote. Otherwise you can't possibly grasp the overwhelming evidence that proves his case. Personally I would like to see Moorman's school records...or teeth! And didn't Ann have a mastoidectomy? Yes it's bat xxxx crazy but it is infinitely more believable than H&L. This is how you all come across boys! Take a look in the mirror!

Sandy, "There have been occasions where David J. and Jim H. have told me that their opinion on something differs from John Armstrong's" That's fine, but why are those doubts never raised in public? It's almost like there has to be an agreed and unified position on any of the issues H&L raises before presenting a united front on any public platform. If the promoters of H&L do have any doubts or queries then they are to be raised 'internally' behind closed doors because "John understands the whole picture better than I ever will. So he's in a better position in making a determination regarding this"... And that is exactly how the Communist Parties throughout Europe used to organise themselves. They had a 'party line' on everything, usually handed down from superiors who no doubt understood the "whole picture" and no doubt were in a "better position in making a determination" over what party position should be. Party leaders were then expected to go out and push this line. Relentlessly. Those that had disagreements sometimes raised them internally, mostly they didn't, but they always kept a united public front. It's a very stale static and claustrophobic way of developing a narrative. As we know, eventually, they were rumbled! So would anyone like to share what those differences may be? It could be the school records for all we know. Is it? Of course you have no obligation to answer that. It is entirely up to you as individuals how you choose to approach these discussions, and if you prefer to stick to the above format, then that is your right. But here we are facing all kinds of aggressive abuse and finger pointing and having our intentions being questioned etc..., for simply raising OUR doubts and differences in public. Yet those that promote it keep their differences to themselves behind closed doors. If you can all disagree with JA from time to time on aspects of H&L (but privately), then we can all publically disagree for as long as we see fit. Why can you have differences with Jim or JA privately about H&L but we are castigated as a "disrupters" "cointelpro" and "vermin" for posting OUR differences on here, a public platform? Why are you allowed to question H&L...but we aren't?

I'm suspicious that twenty years after the creation of a 1,000 page book with such excruciating detail that not one single jot of it has subsequently been seen to be wrong by those who promote it. How likely is it that such an intricate work doesn't contain even one single error (other than typos etc...)? I've asked many times where they think JA my have erred but get no answer. I ask if it's likely that EVERY witness sighting of a an 'inconvenient' Oswald is without a shadow of a doubt correct and thus confirms H&L? And that NONE are mistaken...? Any takers?

Well according to the H&L gang the people of Bolton Ford talked. Didn't they? So did Frank Kudlaty at Stripling, according to them, he talked too. In fact many others they ascribe to seeing 'Lee' while 'Harvey was in Russia...also talked! A huge part of the 'evidence' for H&L comes from people...er, talking! So why have no more since come forward and...talked? .

Let's just recap here a bit. I wrote to Michael and I regrettably threw in a cheap jibe about his writing skills. Naturally he wasn't very pleased, and threw a nasty jibe back at me. I realised that it was me that started the childishness so I took a step back and apologised. Michael immediately responded with gratitude and a promise to reset our relationship a fresh. So far so good. Some other posters even congratulated our maturity. As Michael has always insinuated that I come on here deliberately to "disrupt" and be "awkward", given our newfound friendly status, I thought now was a good time to explain why I was really here. I made an exhaustive list of areas I believe to be either incredulous or questions that haven't been answered despite been asked many many times. That's the whole point of being involved in a forum where multiple ideas are vying for dominance. The tone was totally non confrontational. Just a clinical set of gaping gaps that render, in my opinion, the theory null and void. I didn't expect Michael to answer or address them, that wasn't why I posted them. I just wanted those who attack H&L detractors to at least accept that there are many legitimate questions to be answered, even Michael himself says he has a few issues with it. Why he doesn't raise those issues but rather chooses to attack those that do is, to me, inexplicable behaviour. I ended my post thus..."So Michael, it is not pig headedness on my part and I hope we can at least in future be civil with each other now you know that my intentions are legitimate." His response was..."I wish you would just go away!" And that was after informing me of his research that showed I have written 400 posts in six years on H&L (that's about one per week!!)and so therefore I must be an obsessive...Jim Sandy and David Josephs knock that number up in a few days!!! This is more about tribal loyalty than evaluating evidence. What is fascinating is to see the 'career' researchers, the full time professional book selling ones, who for expedient reasons love to keep their feet in all camps. They don't support, but they do like to cheerlead. They don't perform, but they do like to clap and boo... It's business! I don't envy your Job Kathy, I really don't. You should get paid danger money. Best regards, Bernie

Check Jim's statistics and you will see that he posts exclusively on H&L. What's wrong with that? Btw, my 400 posts over six years equates to just over one post a week. Hardly obsessive is it? What's truly obsessive is your creepy survey!!!! That's the second time you have revealed doing research on me to try and use it as a 'tool'. You say you have problems with H&L but never ever give any details. Why are you allowed to have a problem with it... but I'm not??? "I hope we can at least in future be civil with each other now you know that my intentions are legitimate." - Bernie " I just wish you would go away." Michael I'm going away Michael, I'm done with dealing with little men like you with issues. You win. Enjoy the celebration. I spend far too much valuable time with borderline personality disorders on here...It just ain't worth it. Me voy!

Michael, in view of our reset relationship and withdrawal of hostilities maybe now would be a good time to give a brief reason why I think it is important to debunk and where possible disprove any theory we fear may be acting as a hindrance to further enlightenment. We quite happily come on here and tussle with LNs, not because it's fun, but because we believe that their narrative needs to be robustly countered. There is nothing wrong with that surely? Same with fringe theories that look seductive at first glance but fall to dust on closer inspection. For example, I'm suspicious that there are gigantic gaping gaps in the story, like what became of 'Lee' after Nov 22nd 1963? What became of his doppelganger mother? Why was 'Lee' allowed, given this ultra top secret plot, to go out and buy trucks under his own name while 'Harvey' was in Russia? How do we explain 'Lee's' known mastoid scar being found on 'Harvey' too? When did it become apparent that the two unrelated boys looked almost identical? (So much so that much evidence for H&L is from witness testimony who say he looked like the man shot by Ruby) Why are the H&L supporters confident that there isn't anything left to find about this story? How can a plot that is so tightly sewn up with, according to Jim, nearly all evidence removed, destroyed, manipulated or tidied up, how could it include so many people in the know? Why hasn't any H&L supporter seen fit to try and contact relatives or associates of the dozens of people who knew of H&L? Why do they refuse to take this further than the JFK chat forums and not reach out to respectable alternative media, or anti establishment investigative journalists like John Pilger? What new piece of information has emerged since the release of H&L that corroborates it in any way? This is the killer for me.... Wouldn't there be someone, somewhere, who went to school with 'Lee', or played in the same block, (someone OTHER than those named in the book) wouldn't they be even slightly interested in the JFK story? We come on here looking for answers, how strange that not one of the people who must have known 'Lee' has subsequently taken an interest in the JFK assassination and stumbled on this story. A story that they would be able to corroborate, thus boosting the credibility of H&L. As yet...no one! Think about it. How many must have known and interacted with the MO doppelganger. Of course, they wouldn't know she was the 'doppelganger' unless they subsequently developed an interest in the JFK story, which some of them would... surely? We have, why wouldn't they? Is it likely that everyone who know either 'Lee' or MO, that not one of them would eventually do some of their own digging and, just like us, more than likely find themselves on here. To which they would then go "EUREKA"! Twenty years after the publication and we are still waiting for just one person to come forward. I'm suspicious that twenty years after the creation of a 1,000 page book with such excruciating detail that not one single jot of it has subsequently been seen to be wrong by those who promote it. How likely is it that such an intricate work doesn't contain even one single error (other than typos etc...)? I've asked many times where they think JA my have erred but get no answer. I ask if it's likely that EVERY witness sighting of a an 'inconvenient' Oswald is without a shadow of a doubt correct and thus confirms H&L? And that NONE are mistaken...? You may choose to accept Jim's explanations Michael, and you may think that the above doesn't detract from the theory, and that is your right. But I hope you would accept it is also my right to keep on pushing those questions. It isn't bloody-mindedness and it isn't trolling. I simply don't believe that H&L holds any water and it tires me that it seems to permeate every angle of the JFK assassination but without telling us anything about what may have happened. I think that is a legitimate position to take. I would rather the atmosphere was more cordial. But EVERYONE who criticises H&L no matter how friendly WILL end up being abused, bullied and insulted. That some of us return fire is to our detriment, but the nastiness always originates from those aggressively pushing this diversion, because that's what I believe it is. So Michael, it is not pig headedness on my part and I hope we can at least in future be civil with each other now you know that my intentions are legitimate. Best regards, Bernie

I insinuated no such thing about stealing. If you were going to steal you would have stolen from a good writer. My apologies for casting aspersions on your creative outlet. Just because it's not 'my thing' doesn't detract from its merit, and you're right, it was a cheap shot.

I'll put my songs against your 'scary' stories any day. The only thing scary about them is you thinking they are scary. Did you write them when you were six? I'll leave you this review. Perhaps you'd like to show me a similar one for your, erm, stories.... http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/26044/30-08-2017/catchy-folk-rock-with-a-socialist-edge Say goodnight Gracy...

David Ferrie knew Harvey (1963) and he knew Lee (1955). Ruth Paine knew Harvey and he knew Lee. Ed Voebel knew Harvey and he knew Lee (1954-55). Robert Oswald knew Harvey and knew Lee (Pic's brother). John Pic knew Harvey and knew his brother, Lee. Lillian Murret, Dutz Murret, and their daughter knew Harvey and they knew Lee. Jack Ruby knew about Harvey and Lee. Guy Banister knew about Harvey and Lee. Marguerite Oswald knew about Harvey and Lee. The MO impostor knew about Harvey and Lee. Capt. W.R. Westbrook knew about Harvey and Lee. Sgt. Kenneth Croy knew about Harvey and Lee. Roscoe White knew about Harvey and Lee. J.D. Tippit knew about Harvey and Lee. Ha ha ha!!! What a TOP SECRET plot this is. And this is just part of the list who were in on it. You say Tippit knew. So how many attempts have been made to contact his family or associates to see if they have any more information to offer on this? Do you know for a fact that he didn't spill the beans? Have you tried to find out? Has any of your lot even attempted to see if the associates of the above have more information to offer? Of course you haven't. Because that would be investigative journalism and it would lead you up a dead end, so you simply don't bother and struggle on with scratchy hearsay and 40 year old witness testimony. The fact that none of you are prepared to delve any deeper into any aspect of your obsessive theory/religion is very revealing. It tells us everything. You still haven't answered whether you or JA would welcome an offer for the film rights.

My apologies. It's official. Sandy is a genius. Of course, everyone knows that the gigantically complex process of evaluating a human being's multi-faceted expressions of intelligence can be simply reduced to assigning it a single number! Give me strength! IQ tests are now totally discredited in academia precisely because of its lumpen, dumbed down inability to make that evaluation. Sandy scored 145 so he's a genius? No, he's just very good at doing IQ tests!! (As lots of questions can be multiple choice, it doesn't even preclude luck, let alone how you were feeling that day, or any number of other things that could and do distort the eventual result). According to you then there must be around 20 MILLION geniuses on the planet as we speak!! That's 800,000 in the USA alone. Do you think there are that many geniuses on the planet, Michael? It kind of reduces the meaning of the word doesn't it? What was Mozart's IQ? He was a genius wasn't he? Einstein? Shakespeare? Sandy I'm really sorry for calling you a simpleton. I didn't realise that you are among the very cream of the world's elite in intellectual capacity. In future I'm going to shut up and just listen to what the genius has to offer, because he says he has an IQ of 145. Until a H&L critic comes on here with a higher IQ, you win the argument. H&L is absolute fact because how could such a genius get something as simple as this wrong. Sandy says himself that the school records are "simple" to evaluate and if you differ with him on that then there is "something wrong with your brain", as he told the much higher qualified Lance. It's like having a high FQ, a 'football quotient'. Let's say one gets 177, (which, I have just declared, is very high) and means they're a fantastic player. But does it tell us how fast he is down the wing? HIs ball control? His passing ability? Maybe it would. But would it enlighten us on how he may treat the referee, or his fellow players? Or whether he loses heart when losing, his level of loyalty, his will to win, or taking a penalty under pressure, or not having that match hunger? Or any other of the thousands of facets that determine how good or bad a player is. That can only be truly evaluated in the heat of battle after encompassing every aspect of the game. Not by just taking some one-off test and assigning them a number! All that would say is that he scored 177. See how ridiculous and futile such a system is? But those who score such numbers love nothing better than to SCREAM it at the world as a justification for their superiority. I'll make my own mind up as to someone's intellectual ability based on their level of coherence and aptitude and all round ability to grasp the essence of many complex issues. I look up to, and admire such people. Those who constantly need to try and 'prove' how clever they are usually aren't that clever in my experience. So trying to impress us by telling us all you have a big number is almost as creepy as trying to impress us by telling us you have a big something else...And neither are verifiable! I see Donald Trump's influence must have very quickly permeated it's way down the chain. Doomed! All of us!

Says the man who labelled me "pestilent" "rabid" and "vermin". The same terms used by the Nazis against the Jews. Read a lot of that kind of stuff do you Michael? And yet he takes the moral high ground because I merely think Sandy is a simpleton...

"Squash these pests under your foot. Swarm of pestilent naysayers. Rabid. Vermin" (from a previous post) Why are you even allowed to post on here? You always know when someone is veering towards H&L because they become more vicious and aggressive by the week. Is that how you evaluate evidence? If people you don't like say things you don't want to hear you then presume that, scientifically, the opposite must be the truth? Really? But then you never say anything either way do you Michael? You come on to throw a few left jabs at anyone who questions far out whacky theories, as though you too are the 'keeper of the keys' and defender of something you clearly know nothing about, but you can never offer anything other than insults . It is our undeniable right to question any aspect of this case as we so wish. So grow up and get used to it! That you find this the behaviour of "rabid vermin" says more about your inherent nastiness then proving scientifically that the H&L story is true. I mean. can you believe these people...? Maybe you could copy this exchange and sell it off as one of your 'scary' stories...! "I am a highly intelligent person (IQ = 145) and I don't care what you think about it.." (Sandy Larsen Jan1 2018) Firstly, IQ tests have long since been thoroughly discredited as a measure of judging intelligence. (Clearly you don't do much reading). And secondly, 145? Even if IQs did say something of someone's intellectual capacity...145 isn't that high. You pronounce yourself as highly intelligent. Hurray! Pat on the back for Sandy. Stand back while the cleverest man in the universe figures it all out. He's fixed tellies before so if anyone is going to get to the bottom of this it will be Sandy 145 Larsen. But that is just your puffed up grandiose and chronically egotistical self evaluation. Mine is that you present as a straightforward simpleton. At best.

An this gives you the chronic superiority over other JFK researchers because...? Is this what you are basing your self-pronounced acutely high intelligence from? I think we can assume that Lance's career demanded a little more analytical skill than a TV repairman, wouldn't you say so Sandy? But apparently because he doesn't agree with you, you think there must be "something wrong with his brain". Your problem matey is that you have way too high opinion of your overblown intellectual capacity, when in reality... you come across as being a bit simple. No offence. By the way, you may want to check out a guy called Logie Baird, you know, the guy who actually invented television...!!! See what I mean?

Glad you put "almost". As scintillating as it may be to discuss the perfectly sound narrative of why the DPD behaved the way they did, it would, firstly, be repetitive because it has been adequately discussed numerous times on here and, secondly, it would have nothing to do with the subject of this thread. I was merely pointing out how H&L gang have no qualms about siding with LNs and will cherry pick at will from the WC when it suits their ends. As you do.

I wondered what relevance this all has to the H&L topic until I realised that we have a very diverse meeting of minds going on. It turns out that you are not alone David. The H&L gang also believe in Bledsoe's testimony and the whole public transport 'escape' scenario. You'd have to be either an extreme LN or a H&L fantasist to believe any of it. But of course both you and Jim believe ALL of it. Fair do's David you totally support the WC and so it is at least fully consistent with your flawed belief. The H&L gang however have total and utter contempt for any official finding and constantly mock those who they think underestimate the extent of this dastardly cover up. But they believe in Bledsoe because....... it says so in the WC!!! Ha ha ha!!!

I don't blame you Lance, there is only so much of this you can take at any one time. This isn't about a theory though is it? This is all about MONEY! That's it! Jim and JA have their eyes on a big prize, a multi million dollar bonanza, if they can get the film rights sold to the highest bidder. That is the only explanation for their pig headedness and stubborn refusal to accept the facts. Like true cult leaders who attract folk with profound 'issues' they are focused on the big chance of making money. Neither believes a single word of all this. Neither of them! Jim presents as a sane rational well loved Granddad, which I'm certain he is. I have heard that JA too is a pleasant affable chap, successful in his business enterprises and, despite the ridiculous conclusion, he overcame a Herculean task in writing H&L. You two know EXACTLY what you are doing! It's an iron in the fire; a finger in a pie, a low risk business opportunity that could potentially rake in millions. I get it. You are Americans. The world is one gigantic business opportunity. Anything goes, as long as it is legal. And this is legal. It' wrong, immoral, incredibly cynical and extremely damaging to the cause of discovering the truth...but it's legal. And possibly very profitable. That always trumps truth! It's a sad observation but if Jim, or anyone else, had been selling the theory that Elvis had killed JFK they would probably attract similar people to the ones aggressively punching and spitting for H&L. Someone somewhere will follow ANYTHING! For some it is the only way to make sense of the world. For others it is a cheap way to make themselves appear 'interesting' and 'smart'. But like abused cult members world wide, they are merely little pawns in a bigger unseen game. And they will get NOTHING! No recognition. No money. No thank-yous. You simply won't hear from them again. Jim I believe you are a hustler, a business man, a money man, a chancer and a survivor. You'll never be poor; you're too smart. You've got plans. Big plans. If it were anything other than this silly nonsense you are promoting I would actually have a fair bit of respect for you. So let me ask you directly. Would you be pleased if an established film studio offered JA a handsome price for the film rights to H&L and also wanted to hire you as an advisor on silly money including subsequent royalties? Or would you turn it down?

Brilliant! What will the response be? Silence? Info dump? Abuse and name-calling?

Hi Tom, you may call me a cynic but you don't think he has deliberately made himself unavailable so as to not have to face up to his humiliating mistake do you? It wouldn't be the first time he has done that.

When you have been at the receiving end of that man's endless aggressive taunts, and subject to his insufferable and chronic superiority complex, it is indeed humiliating that he could make this childish error. I believe it has done more to discredit H&L than a 1,000 posts by its critics. At least now we can see crystal clear how this bunch operate. Maybe one of the mods may want to help him out and remove it. Don...?

Ha ha ha!!!! What a loser! It's an ENGINEER'S ROD!!!!!! They are graded in tenths of a foot!!! This is just priceless. Any apologies for deliberately misleading people here? Or was it just that the hysterical paranoia blinded you to alternative explanations? Either way, you have really humiliated yourself this time. I doubt we'll hear from you for a few days now, that's what you normally do when you make a fool of yourself on here. Nope, you'll lay low for a few days and then do an info dump on the School records as if nothing has happened. You do know that people can still read the previous pages? They don't disappear just because you do! Will there be a recognition of your schoolboy error?

And is this what you also think Jim? Because if so, one has to ask why a 'grown man' would want to spend so much of his life refuting what an "idiot savant" has to say. See the problem you've made for yourself here? Is it a good use of one's time to constantly try and critique an "idiot"? Why don't you try critiquing someone who isn't an idiot? Wouldn't that be a better use of your time?. Or is it that Greg REALLY gets under your skin because of his major contribution in completely destroying your ridiculous fantasy and the big cash windfall you all hoped would come with it? If not, then we just have to assume that you are the sort of person who seeks out idiots with idiotic ideas and obsessively taunts and goads them. Even better when you know they have no recourse to reply! Not only does Hargrove only feel safe talking to "idiots", he prefers it if those "idiots" can't even answer back!

Seriously...you need professional help! I often expect to see Jim's face splattered all over the tabloids. Which school will it be Jim?

Says the man who two pages ago referred to us as "vermin"!!!! Did you seriously not get suspended for that? Michael thinks it is slanderous to criticise the H&L story and he gets very angry with those that do. This is the bargain basement mentality we are up against.