Bernie Laverick

Just now, Michael Walton said:

Bernie, how dare you! Her name was AnnE Mary Moorman with an E at the end of her first name!  Now let me tell you something, Laverick! We all know you're ignorant here! But this is the most ignorant you've EVER shown yourself to be here! You're simply clueless here because they have the EVIDENCE! So just....go awayyyy!!!

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!

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Bernie,

There have been occasions where David J. and Jim H. have told me that their opinion on something differs from John Armstrong's. I've also had some minor differences of opinion.

But if I were asked right now to list all or most those differences , I couldn't do so. Because most of them are so minor that I don't keep them on my radar screen. It's the big picture that interests me right now.

But there is one thing I do recall. John believes that the adult LEE was the same person as the boy LEE. I have a reason to believe that they were more likely not the same person. And/or there were multiple Oswalds after the defection.

However, John understands the whole picture better than I ever will. So he's in a better position in making a determination regarding this. Because of that, you won't see me trying to convince others of my belief. Rather, I just keep my mind open to my belief as I study the surrounding story. That way if I should come across evidence that supports what I believe, I can run it by John to see what he thinks.

 

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?

2 hours ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

Are you really suggesting "someone would have talked?"

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?

.

8 hours ago, Kathy Beckett said:

What??????? I thought this was resolved. 

Like it or no, he has as much right as you do to be here.  

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

3 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Bernie,

I did a quick survey of your EF posting history.

in the last 6 years you have posted @400 times.

Of those 400 posts, 14 were NOT, at a glance, relaeted to the two Oswald problem.

Every other post ( nearly 400) just disrupts threads that explore the dual Oswald issue.

I have questions about the two Oswald problem.

None of your posts that I have read have been of any help in answering my questions. 

None of your posts show any interest in the JFKA. You are just interested in breaking-up this facet of the discussion.

I don't understand and I do not care why you obsess on obstructing the dual-Oswald discussion.

I just wish you would go away.

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

8 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

For clarification, Sandy shared a cool story about how, as a teen,  he repaired a TV for the guy who invented the TV. Very cool story. Bernie ridiculed Sandy for sharing they story. He then insinuated that I stole somebody else's stories and shared them as my own in an EF thread that I opened, elsewhere in the forum, called "Scary Stories Thread.

Bernie's dirty shot at me: "Maybe you could copy this exchange and sell it off as one of your 'scary' stories...!"

My Scary Stories Thread...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23797-scary-stories-thread/

Bernie, I received a couple of accolades for one of my stories... right on the originating Jeep forum, to which I shared a link in my EF thread.

-"that was the most descriptive story i have ever read in my life!!!!

-"Lol thank you for the entertainment. I felt like i was there!"

-"... awesome story!

-"Wow that was a great read. Very well done made me feel like I was there."

 

 

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.

2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

I Bernie, I looked at your posting history in your profile, and it is you who are obsessed.

I also saw a few of your music videos, and I am still laughing... 😂

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.  

58 minutes ago, Michael Cross said:

Wow. 

 

"A normal intelligence quotient (IQ) ranges from 85 to 115 (According to the Stanford-Binet scale). Only approximately 1% of the people in the world have an IQ of 135 or over. Genius or near-genius IQ is considered to start around 140 to 145. Less than 1/4 of 1 percent falls into this category."

 

http://bfy.tw/FrHU

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!

15 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Bernie, Your personal attacks on Sandy are disgusting. Stick to the evidence. Sandy's career and experience is quite impressive. You probably have missed it since you seem to singularly circle in the waters at the H&L end of the pool.

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...

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

Nice slam dunk Sandy. It's great to see you squash these pests under your foot.

I have to say, the rabid persistence with which these pests attack the work of Armstrong makes me think, more and more, that there is something very important in it. It must be of the greatest importance to attract such a swarm of pestilent naysayers. My interest has always been in answering a couple of questions regarding obvious occasions where Oswald was impersonated. I am now thinking that Armstrong's work may very well be the key to the mechanics of the assassination.

Keep up the good work Sandy.

"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. 

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The first tube TV I repaired was in 5th grade. Then in 8th grade I got a part time job fixing both tube and transistor TVs (and radios, stereos, etc.). My boss didn't understand transistor circuits, so I worked on all of those. Made $12 per hour, or $83 per hour in today's dollars. Not bad for a 14 year old. And my boss got a lot of fishing in.

But the big highlight for me was when my boss took me on my first in-home repair. I was surprised because I wouldn't be getting my drivers license for a couple years. But he insisted and so we went and I fixed this elderly man's television in his home and took his transistor set to the shop to fix later. On our way to the shop my boss asked me how it felt to have fixed the television of the man who invented television.

I was surprised and a little shy. Truth is, I figured that every state probably had an inventor who was involved in creating the first electronic television system. (The earliest televisions were mechanical.)  So I didn't think much of it.

Then five or ten years ago I recalled the incident and checked it out. As it turns out, my boss was right. Philo Farnsworth, a resident of Provo at the time, had invented the modern electronic television system when he was 15 years old.

So, because of my awesome boss, I was honored with being the 14 year-old boy who repaired the televisions of the man who invented  television at age 14!

Unlike other inventors of the era, Farnsworth didn't become famous due to legal battles over patent rights that went on for over a decade.

 

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.

1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

So, Mary Bledsoe was wrong? And what about this bus transfer, Paul? You must think it's a fake, right?....

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!!!

46 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

In other fields of weirdness, it irritates me when the debunkers' fallback position is always the axiom "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - and no amount of evidence ever quite rises to the level of extraordinary.  But here the axiom fits to a tee.

The H&L zealots are claiming there was, at the 8th-grade level, a HARVEY and a LEE already being groomed by the intelligence community and that HARVEY attended Beauregard during a portion of the 1953/1954 school year while LEE began attending the same school later in the same school year.  To characterize these claims as "extraordinary" would be charitable in the extreme.  They are "extraordinary" in the same way the claims that We Never Landed On the Moon are "extraordinary."

The school records that the H&L zealots regard as sufficiently extraordinary evidence simply are not.  I have read the extended debate between Sandy and Greg Parker at Greg's forum.  Is Greg also suffering from "a declining facility," Sandy?  (I graduated magna cum laude from law school, have a documented IQ in the 99.7th percentile, and have been an appellate lawyer for decades without anyone having noticed my "declining facility," whatever that is supposed to mean.  And your credentials are ...?)

Greg has suggested one plausible explanation for the records.  I personally don't find that the explanation requires even the level of complexity Greg suggests.  In order for LHO to be deemed to have satisfactorily completed the 1953/1954 school year, Beauregard was obviously going to have to credit his attendance in New York.  Since families move all the time, this is a common occurrence.  It appears to me that the Beauregard attendance record reflects only attendance at Beauregard, but I could be wrong.  The larger point is, both Oswald Student Greg and Little Old Lance both think the school records show something far less extraordinary than the H&L zealots claim - so those records obviously do not speak for themselves.  If you want to convince people they show the extraordinary things you claim, you must produce some reasonably extraordinary evidence.

We have bogged down in the minutiae as to how the 1953/1954 school year was divided.  Those who are wedded to a wacky theory love to bog down in minutiae because their theory looks so wacky when viewed from a broader perspective.  My point does not hinge on precisely how the school year was divided or what "semester" means.  I simply suggest that the 1953/1954 school year was indeed a school year extending from early September to late May, with interim grade reporting periods during that time, and the issue at the end of that time was simply whether the student would be promoted to the next grade level.  I suggest this because it is pretty much how all schools operated back then and because this is what LHO's school records seem to me to show.  I see nothing mandating a conclusion that LHO or HARVEY or LEE or GLADYS KNIGHT & THE PIPS were attending Beauregard before January of 1954.

(Contrary to your experience, I indeed did not encounter the notion of "semesters" or "terms" or "mid-term exams" until I entered college in 1968.  If my experience was bizarre, so be it.  It's not even clear to me how that would work:  If I were in the 7th grade and failed the "first semester" thereof, what would happen?)

No, the burden of proof is on the proponents of the wacky theory, not on those who regard the wacky with skepticism.  I know how the game works:  The proponents of the wacky theory will never initiate the steps that would definitively prove or disprove their wacky theory.  Because at some level they know their theory is wacky, and because they derive a certain level of enjoyment from reveling in their wackiness with their fellow true believers, their goal is always to preserve the "mystery."

One simply cannot discuss an issue rationally with a Young Earth Christian, a Flat Earther, a We Never Went to the Moon zealot, an Alien Abduction zealot ... or an H&L zealot.  And thus, I am going to move on from this thread.  Please, declare victory and pat yourself on the back.

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?

32 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

That's a fair point.  However, 54 years after the assassination it is difficult to start with a blank slate.  Since the Warren Commission (boo! hiss!) concluded LHO was the lone assassin, and the HSCA reached essentially the same conclusion apart from the dictabelt confusion, and since virtually every conspiracy theory has LHO as a central figure of some sort, I think it makes sense to start with the Lone Nut theory and work from there.

This, I gather from past experience, is what Sandy conceives his role to be: He Who Bravely Goes Down With the Ship.  In a fundamentalist sect, continuing to insist the earth is flat is what distinguishes the True Believers from the mere zealots.

Now we see Sandy and Jim following the absolutely predictable approach:  The issue is not the slightly laughable screw-up that exposes how quick the zealots are to reach theory-supporting conclusions without closing examining the evidence.  No, the issue is not why CE 1311 suspiciously shows LHO as 5'7" (gee, I thought that WAS the issue).  No, the issue is not why we of the H&L sect leaped to this dark conclusion when the answer was right in front of us and was spotted by a non-True Believer (that would be moi) in a matter of seconds.  Forget all that - it's not important.  The issue, as you should have gleaned from the original post (really?), is why certain Marine Corps records show LHO as 71".  Well, that certainly is an issue, but it wasn't the issue here until we of the H&L sect once again got caught with our investigative pants down and had to move the goalpost.  Perhaps uniquely on this forum, I have actually debated with Flat Earthers, Young Earth Christians and other religious equivalents of the H&L sect.  I know the game.

Brilliant!

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

13 minutes ago, Tom Hume said:

For your information, David has been booted and can’t respond. I miss the days on this forum when researchers treated each other with respect and dignity regardless of their hypothesis. Who among us are 100% correct? In this field, If any of us turned out to be 50% right, that would be pretty damn good.

 

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.

1 minute ago, Lance Payette said:

I've had to acknowledge too many mistakes a LOT bigger than that in my legal career and personal life to think the one here qualifies as "humiliating" or qualifies David for the label "loser."  I would just like to see, throughout the conspiracy community, more care with the evidence before leaping to conclusions to support pet theories.  This is especially true when the pet theory is one as wild as H&L.  I had never heard of an engineer's (or surveyor's) rod myself before noticing that the feet on the stick had only ten segments.

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...? 

On ‎15‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 7:15 PM, David Josephs said:

CE 1311 - Photograph of assassination window from inside of building showing person of Lee Harvey Oswald's height ..

Repeatedly the H&L naysayers claim there was no height difference or concerns...  That despite leaving the Marines at 5"11" and 150 lbs

the man at the window was - with 2" man-heels - 5' 7"

Why would they make a 5'10" man only 5'7" ??  Even the Rose Autopsy said he was 5'9"...

Why is he made out to be so short when all the records seem to claim he was 2 to 4 inches taller?

 

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?

8 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Since you continue to invoke Mr. Parker as if he matters here, let me offer up the following analysis of Mr. Parker's work from my e-pal of many years. My e-friend thinks Mr. Parker is nothing but a fraud. My e-friend's YouTube commentary is presented here with the express permission of the original poster. Here is what he said about Greg Parker:

You have to have a total grasp of where Parker is coming from in order to understand the exact flaws in what he is trying to do... I'm glad however that you once again sussed out the critical flaws in his approach without any understanding of the "Harvey & Lee" background of this issue...

Greg is the first person to demand precise methodology and evidence when he is dodging someone else's good claims, but typical of his ROKC group does not demand the same from himself..."Grandiose" might be one way of describing Parker's approach... I have some other words to add....

Because you haven't participated in the general debate you are not aware that Parker is trying to hide symptoms of Lee Oswald being doubled-over by the CIA double "Harvey" behind pseudo analyses of psychiatric conditions.... Parker is trying to portray the anti-social secretive behavior of a CIA spy as being due to Asperger's syndrome, but as you cleverly figured out it doesn't wash according to common sense and Oswald's real profile that Parker avoids by drawing you to his bogus lectures...

What Parker isn't being honest about is the fact Lee probably showed those psychiatric quirks because he was part of a CIA program that went back to his childhood and may have even murdered his father.... Because Lee was raised in this intel bubble in a dysfunctional family he exhibited mental traits equal to such an average southern boy in such a situation.... Maybe even Marguerite too....

Parker ignores the true cause and interpretation of this diagnosis in order to contrive his specious Asperger's theory...A wise observer would realize that Parker is making up this Aspergers explanation exactly because he is aware that Oswald's learning of Russian has no good explanation if it was just Oswald alone... Also, Parker is not honestly mentioning that Oswald had no time to learn Russian according to his Marine schedule... Moreover the Asperger's Parker refers to is an extreme condition that displays overt symptoms that military doctors and overseers would not miss... The savant aspects of Aspergers exist in an inverse relationship where the worse the condition the more the individual is able to perform the intuitive skill he focuses on... So just like you said, this would leave the individual unable to perform in the normal range and the Marines do not miss such defects...But even further, in his response Parker seems to confuse what Moorek is saying....

This is typical of Parker because he avoids information he can't give an honest answer to....  Moorek was not talking about Oswald's learning of Russian she was talking about the fact that the Oswald heard in the police station and on radio shows did not have the noticeable southern accent of Lee Harvey Oswald and that it was not linguistically normal to 'unlearn' such a core language feature under Oswald's circumstances...

This is what John Armstrong was also saying in his book 'Harvey & Lee' and the explanation for it is that the Oswald you are seeing in those scenes is a CIA double from Manhattan whose family had a background in Russian language through Hungary... Mr Parker is not explaining why his language savant Oswald did not pick-up Spanish in his interactions with the Cuban exiles?...Oswald also showed skill in concealing his covert activities for an alleged Asperger's victim....

Why do you continue to invoke Mr. Parker to defend the Warren Commission? Why is Mr. Parker always endorsed by Warren Commission apologists like you? Do you think any of us believe him?  Explain to us why Mr. Parker was banned from this forum, and the Deep Politics forum, and why we should believe you that we should believe him.  Why should we consider him to be anything but yet another shill for the Warren Commission, just like you?  Just askin'.

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!

6 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Bernie HATES THIS.  PLEASE DON'T CLICK ON THE LINK ABOVE!!  THINK OF BERNIE!!!!

Seriously...you need professional help! I often expect to see Jim's face splattered all over the tabloids.

Which school will it be Jim? 

4 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Paul, you fabricate garbage all the time and you get called on it. That is what it is and unfortunately must be accepted, I guess. Michael Walton fabricates slander of other members all the time. I don't see how that is acceptable.

 

 

 

 

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.