Bernie Laverick

Go back and look.I have added that it was a post you were responding to. i am sure folks can figure out, that if your post itself was offensive, it wouldn't be there, since I removed the offensive part. Kathy My apologies Kathy. I thought the thread had been closed...

On the DVP Oswald's bedroom thread after recieving a vile personal attack I answered thus: When there is a whole back catalogue of evidence suggesting he was deliberately framed. David can you not even slightly accept the premise that when someone is framed for a crime they didn't commit, they will inevitably have some connection to the event, (either real or planted)? That's how and why they have become the patsy! In what possible way is this deemed to be offensive Kathy? I get called a "retard", which I had the good grace to ignore, and yet my above response is considered too offensive? I've read about this kind of blatant bias before on this forum. Unbelievable!

David the principal dynamic of creating a pasty is so simple even a child can understand it. In fact lots of school children do it every day. In fear of being caught with cigarettes prior to a search, some unscrupulous student wouldn't think twice of planting his own on an unsuspecting colleague so as to avoid detection of his misdemeanour. That doesn't therefore mean that the unwitting student caught 'red-handed' is ACTUALLY guilty. Merely the victim of a highly immoral act. "Yeah but he had a packet of Lucky's in his satchel" Case closed!

The rules of behavior on the JFK Forum state: (iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum. Now I realise that what Mr. Von Pein has posted is written by somebody else but surely this still constitutes a personal attack on the other members? I mean do we really want members to call each other "retards" and get away with it on a technicality? "Mind-numbingly retarded on many different levels. How can you tell innocent people from guilty people if not by incriminating evidence (in fact, it seems the incriminating evidence is seen as an indicator of Oswald's innocence)? When there is a whole back catalogue of evidence suggesting he was deliberately framed. David can you not even slightly accept the premise that when someone is framed for a crime they didn't commit, they will inevitably have some connection to the event, (either real or planted)? That's how and why they have become the patsy!

Oh, sure. It's much MUCH more "likely" for the revolver to have been "planted" on Oswald in the theater than it is to believe Johnny Brewer and all of the cops who were there (who all said Oswald pulled the gun out of his waist and tried to shoot some people with it) -- right Jim? LOL. Jim, please stop! You know my bladder is a very weak one! "who all said Oswald pulled the gun out of his waist" Surely they would have said that he pulled A gun. Not THE gun. It's a very important distinction. Alas, lost on you David.

SURELY THIS GARBAGE BELONGS IN one of the HUNDREDS of threads accusing Lee Oswald of being SOMEHOW INVOLVED..... In contrast to the HUNDREDS of ANTI-OSWALD threads which constitute the greater part of this forum, this particular thread was SPECIFICALLY AND UNIqUELY established for postings by those who think he was innocent. So why don't you take this nonsense and post it with all the BullXXXt where it belongs? "...this particular thread was SPECIFICALLY AND UNIqUELY established for postings by those who think he was innocent." Why? To what purpose? And wouldn't that just make it the most pointless thread ever? It's like starting a thread on on the Zapruder film...but only for alterationists. Or one on the possibility of there being an Oswald double, but only for those who don't agree. On a public debating forum! Bizarre is not the word. How will folk learn all the facts without seeing the debate, without seeing an alternative view? Is that how you try and learn things Ray? Find an opinion, stick to it rigidly and then spend countless hours avoiding other people's opinions in case it taints your carved in stone outlook? Do you not believe Oswald had any connection to any intelligence organisation?

So you give the thread a provocative title aimed directly at Oswald accusers and end it with a plea for them not to reply. So apparently this thread is solely for Oswald DEFENDERS . But if there are no Oswald ACCUSERS contributing there will be nothing for the defenders to defend! Not thought this through have you Raymond? But hey, at least inconvenient facts won't be getting in the way of things.

Because conspiracy theorists have had a willful desire for over 4 decades to mangle and twist the known "Oswald Did It" facts in the case. (Plus there's the fact that very few CTers have any ability at all to evaluate evidence properly and with common sense.) That's why. http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com Too bad then that more than 60% of Americans and almost 80% of Europeans believe he didn't do it! If this conspiracy theory is so "mangled" and "twisted" what does that say about the inept prosecutors who still cannot prove, after a half a century, that they got their man?

Oh, sure. And the police in the Texas Theater just shoved the S&W .38 into Oswald's hands in the theater and whispered to him -- "Hey, Lee, would you be kind enough to go along with this patsy plot we're undertaking today, and take this gun and act like you want to shoot a bunch of us cops with it? How 'bout it, buddy? Will you help us out with this thing? I'll owe you a beer if you do." Couldn't they have just 'taken' it from his pocket? And no, not the police plural, but one particular cop, McDonald, during the melee: he simply pretends to produce it from Oswald's pocket. How difficult would that be to do?

The answer to that question can never be known. You know that. Everybody knows it's an unanswerable question, and different people will have different opinions about it. My own "opinion" is that he probably made the decision to try to make an attempt on JFK's life sometime on Wednesday evening, November 20th. He then asks Wes Frazier for the unusual ride to Irving on Thursday morning and LHO invents his "curtain rod" lie at that time. So it's pretty clear that by Thursday AM, he had it in his mind to make an attempt on JFK's life. But on Thursday night, per Marina, LHO says that he would get an apartment in Dallas "tomorrow" if she would agree to come back to Dallas with him to live right away. So it's highly unlikely he would have taken that rifle to work with him on Friday if Marina had said "Yes". The rest is history, of course. LHO took his rifle to work on Nov. 22 and got extremely lucky when he found himself completely alone on the sixth floor at exactly 12:30. If Bonnie Ray Williams (or other employees) had been up there on the sixth floor at 12:30, there is no way, IMO, that Oswald would have fired a single shot at JFK. So, yes, Oswald was one LUCKY Presidential assassin on November 22, 1963. No question about that. But he WAS a Presidential assassin that day. There's no question about THAT either. "Everybody knows it's an unanswerable question," Is it unanswerable because there isn't one piece of evidence to suggest that Oswald ever made such a plan? Of course, that doesn't mean he didn't. It just means you cannot prove he did. So as things stand we have to assume he didn't! The burden of proof is on you remember? "So it's pretty clear that by Thursday AM, he had it in his mind to make an attempt on JFK's life." What, because of a tiff with his wife? Is this really the only motive you can offer? And "...if Marina had said "Yes"." None of this would have ever happened? "But he WAS a Presidential assassin that day. There's no question about THAT either." No question? Then why nearly a half century after the event are you still desperately having to defend the ridiculous WC conclusion?

And only in the world of conspiracy-giddy theorists could such things like OSWALD BEING CAUGHT WITH THE MURDER WEAPON ON HIM within 35 minutes of the murder of a policeman be considered "silliness". You're doing great, Jim. Please continue. And I want to hear more about your fantasy about Wes Frazier and Linnie Randle being forced by the rotten & corrupt DPD to make up the "bag" story out of whole cloth. That's a tale Aesop would reject out of hand. "And only in the world of conspiracy-giddy theorists could such things like OSWALD BEING CAUGHT WITH THE MURDER WEAPON ON HIM within 35 minutes of the murder of a policeman be considered "silliness". Yes David, of course patsies have incriminating evidence on them. if not they wouldn't be patsies would they? I do presume you accept that in the entire history of humanity there has been such a thing as a patsy before. Somewhere surely. If so, there will be incriminating evidence tying them to the deed, placed there by people who want to cover up their own involvement. Shouldn't really have to be explaining this....

Thanks for the bump Lee Thanks for that Lee. I remember following it the first time round. I'll give it another read. As a seperate topic but one in which you guys may be able to help me with, I have asked numerous times if anyone who believes Oswald acted alone could tell (or even guess) when he first made the decision. It's like extracting dinosaur teeth with a matchstick! I wondered if anyone else knew what the 'standard' response to this problematical question is, seeing as the 'true believers' are clearly too coy to answer. Any ideas?

Trust me at first I thought he was 100% not involved, but as time went on the same questions kept bugging me I think to myself, would I go home and grab my gun if I didnt do anything? No Would I go home and grab my gun if I figured out that I had been set up because I had been involved in a plot as a small player? Yes, because I would be scared for my life Thats why I think LHO killed Tippet, because he could trust nobody and was scared for his life I think that when Tippet pulled up to the curb and called out to Oswald that LHO said to himself this is it, this cop is going to kill me, so LHO got the draw on Tippet and killed him Oswald had to be involved at a low level in the plot He was set up to take the fall, and after JFK was killed he knew he was a dead man I would even go one further than "involved". I believe Oswald knew exactly what was going down that day. Had history twisted itself just a little on 22nd Nov 1963 and another patsy had been assigned the role (maybe one of the knoll shooters say) Oswald would have become just another suspicious, maybe even peripheral, 'name' to add to that shadowy list of those with a possible involvement.

I feel the same way about Oswald as you do John Of course, so do I. But I would like those who believe Oswald did it all alone to explain when he made the decision to do so. Not one has dared to even offer a guess so far. Such a simple question...

"Now, granted, this "re-creation" performed by Frederic Forrest in Mel Stuart's 1978 TV-movie doesn't "prove" a darn thing with respect to the real Oswald's actions in November 1963. I'll readily admit that fact." Who did the screenplay? Arlen Specter? I notice the word "prove" has quotation marks, as in, "OK, it doesn't prove anything but it's obvious that that's probably what happened" And, IMO, Forrest's re-creation of Oswald's alleged movements and post- assassination actions after arriving at the Beckley roominghouse are probably very close to the precise movements made by the real Lee Oswald on 11/22/63. So, let me get this right. He assassinates Kennedy from his workplace (a decision taken no more than two days previously), makes his get-away (it IS a get-away isn't it?) on two modes of public transport before arriving at his rooming house to collect just two things: a gun and a jacket: (Yup, the assassin makes a slick get-away to get himself...another gun! Well planned Lee!) Then he hot foots it like an Olympiad for nearly a mile (all unseen by anyone)to an area he has apparently no previous connection with, and is spotted by a 'keen-eyed cop' (conveniently placed there and told to be "at large") whom he shoots before fleeing in the opposite direction towards a cinema where he grapples with a battalion of Dallas police who'd been called to go and arrest a gate-crasher. Is this the Oswald we have all heard about, you know, the cold calculated assassin that pulled off a meticulously planned hit....or, is he just the village idiot? His actions certainly lean towards the latter if this is the WC script. So who really was Oswald? David I have asked this question a few times on here but as yet no one has dared to give an answer. Even a ridiculous one! Maybe you could tell me when YOU think Oswald first made the decision to kill Kennedy.

OK, Greg, You have now shown that -- in addition to the other areas in which you show your youthful lack of expertise -- you know little about the gentleman's game of GOLF. The world's major golf international is the RYDER CUP in which the US (which is a country) takes on Europe. This year I've got FIFTY BUCKS that says EUROPE is the WINNING COUNTRY! As important as the Ryder Cup is I doubt it is the determining factor in what constitutes a nation state Ray. Maybe centuries of socio-political and military developments combined with natural geographic obstacles have more to do with whether Europe is a patchwork of seperate countries with their own seperate languages and cultures: OR, a single entity for the sole purposes of playing golf! The mind boggles! This is the archetypal attitude some Americans show towards Europe and the rest of the world. Pure undiluted ignorance!

"but Francois can't even answer a simple question let alone engage in debate,", which is a completely false and stupid statement. No it isn't. You have been asked at on at least five occasions now to answer a simple straightforward question: When did Oswald first decide to kill Kennedy? And you have chickened out on every one of them! If Francoise is involved in any way in this debate then the forum is effectively finished as a vehicle for education.

Fascinating stuff Francois. But tell me, when did Oswald first decide he was going to kill Kennedy?

I didn't ask you any questions; I asked just the one. When did Oswald decide to kill Kennedy? You boasted that you knew. I predicted you didn't. Some may infer from your non-answer a confirmation that not one spot of evidence exists that even hints at when Oswald first made his decision to kill Kennedy. In the absence of any LNer giving an answer, may I do it for you? It's not so hard. Who knows, I may even get me a job offer from that museum. OK, firstly Bernie, the absence of any evidence regarding Oswald's decision time scale casts absolutely no bearing on his lack of culpability. If an ordinary murderer left no clues or evidence as to when he first made the decision to kill that clearly doesn't absolve him from the crime. Likewise with Oswald. But I am working on some documents that I think will blow the lid once and for all on this murder. We know Oswald did it. We know from all the other evidence. But you CT's are, to a point, on the right tracks and there is a clear crossover of theories. Ok, This is is a very rough draft of what actually happened: I plan to develop this over the next few weeks as and when the information can be verified. Oswald's espionage mission in Russia had stalled/failed. They didn't truly believe him. He couldn't properly convince them. It was going nowhere so he was brought back home. Oswald was promised another shot, another 'defection', once he had convinced his Russian watchers that he truly was working for the Communist world. Yes, the CT's are right, he was working for the CIA; he did do low level informing for the FBI and part of this would have been a legitimate mission to root out communist sympathisers. What better way than to pretend to be an advocate of FPCC? But more importantly it had the intended bonus of knowing for sure that Moscow would hear of this. And that, of course, would further boost his credibility for the planned return mission. So far so good. But then, disaster. I have access to Russian archives that prove that the CIA were tipped off (by a certain Colonel in the Interior Ministry) that Soviet counter espionage now had solid proof of Oswald's planned deception, and concrete proof of Oswald's true affiliation. The mission was off. He was finished. Outed. This would have been the equivilant to being sent off before half time in the World Cup Final! Nowhere to go. No trade. A history of Communist defection and left wing agitation. A Russian wife he didn't love or even like (all in the course of duty). Dumped by his handlers, betrayed and left to dry in a country which at that time had immense hostility for the caricature he had been asked to draw of himself...he snapped! Plain and simple. He knew what he was going to do when he was told he wouldn't be flying out to Cuba on the 22nd November as per the original plan. He was going to take advantage of a freak turn of events. Robbed of his possible legacy as a master spy, a name for the history books, and now convinced he had very little left to live for he took advantage of that freak occurance. A real somebody was to be driving right under his nose the very next day. The rest is history. Not bad that... Of course, you are joking, right? Maybe there should be a just joking thread. BK It's alot more plausable than some of the BS you see on this forum, don't you think Francois?

I didn't ask you any questions; I asked just the one. When did Oswald decide to kill Kennedy? You boasted that you knew. I predicted you didn't. Some may infer from your non-answer a confirmation that not one spot of evidence exists that even hints at when Oswald first made his decision to kill Kennedy. In the absence of any LNer giving an answer, may I do it for you? It's not so hard. Who knows, I may even get me a job offer from that museum. OK, firstly Bernie, the absence of any evidence regarding Oswald's decision time scale casts absolutely no bearing on his lack of culpability. If an ordinary murderer left no clues or evidence as to when he first made the decision to kill that clearly doesn't absolve him from the crime. Likewise with Oswald. But I am working on some documents that I think will blow the lid once and for all on this murder. We know Oswald did it. We know from all the other evidence. But you CT's are, to a point, on the right tracks and there is a clear crossover of theories. Ok, This is is a very rough draft of what actually happened: I plan to develop this over the next few weeks as and when the information can be verified. Oswald's espionage mission in Russia had stalled/failed. They didn't truly believe him. He couldn't properly convince them. It was going nowhere so he was brought back home. Oswald was promised another shot, another 'defection', once he had convinced his Russian watchers that he truly was working for the Communist world. Yes, the CT's are right, he was working for the CIA; he did do low level informing for the FBI and part of this would have been a legitimate mission to root out communist sympathisers. What better way than to pretend to be an advocate of FPCC? But more importantly it had the intended bonus of knowing for sure that Moscow would hear of this. And that, of course, would further boost his credibility for the planned return mission. So far so good. But then, disaster. I have access to Russian archives that prove that the CIA were tipped off (by a certain Colonel in the Interior Ministry) that Soviet counter espionage now had solid proof of Oswald's planned deception, and concrete proof of Oswald's true affiliation. The mission was off. He was finished. Outed. This would have been the equivilant to being sent off before half time in the World Cup Final! Nowhere to go. No trade. A history of Communist defection and left wing agitation. A Russian wife he didn't love or even like (all in the course of duty). Dumped by his handlers, betrayed and left to dry in a country which at that time had immense hostility for the caricature he had been asked to draw of himself...he snapped! Plain and simple. He knew what he was going to do when he was told he wouldn't be flying out to Cuba on the 22nd November as per the original plan. He was going to take advantage of a freak turn of events. Robbed of his possible legacy as a master spy, a name for the history books, and now convinced he had very little left to live for he took advantage of that freak occurance. A real somebody was to be driving right under his nose the very next day. The rest is history. Not bad that...

I appreciate you are very busy but a straightforward 'Wednesday 20th Nov' (or some other such date) would suffice. You could even have added your 'evidence' at a more convenient time. I presume this is what we are all waiting for - your evidence. Why take ages writing a reply that roughly says you haven't got time to write a reply? Why not just reply? If you keep playing your game, I may end up concluding that you do not deserve to get your answer. Just asking a simple question Francois. One that you say you know the answer to. Why is that playing a game? "Playing a game" is saying you can answer the question, "When did Oswald decide to kill Kennedy?" but keeps it a secret from those who don't "deserve" an answer. Come on Francois, we both know it. You aren't going to answer. If only I were more deserving...

Thank you Francois I really would appreciate that. I am flattered that you're going away to do some research on the matter, but why don't you know? Surely this part of the story is yours - you own it. You say you have dozens of books on the assassination, that you have read every single one of them: yet, off the top of your head you can't even tell us when your man decided to do it. The problem you have of course (as all your Lner friends seemed to have discovered) is that whichever time you pick it will be riddled with yet more unanswered questions. Try it. Found it yet? Come on Francois, the silence is embarrassing. No one is asking for a cure for deadly diseases, just a simple answer to a simple question. One on which you have professed an immense ammount of knowledge; "more than anyone else on here" you said. So here you go - make the CT's look stupid and demonstrate when Oswald first made the decision to kill Kennedy. Si vous plait?

Thank you Francois I really would appreciate that. I am flattered that you're going away to do some research on the matter, but why don't you know? Surely this part of the story is yours - you own it. You say you have dozens of books on the assassination, that you have read every single one of them: yet, off the top of your head you can't even tell us when your man decided to do it. The problem you have of course (as all your Lner friends seemed to have discovered) is that whichever time you pick it will be riddled with yet more unanswered questions. Try it.

Hi Francois. I read your recent post "what's the point" and was inspired to dig up a couple of recent threads especially created for yourself and fellow thinkers. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16157&pid=197888&st=0entry197888 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16189&st=0 Thing is, as you will see, your LNer 'comrades' seemed to have deserted the field of battle. All that was asked..."When did Oswald DECIDE to assassinate Kennedy?" Why do you think they were so coy? Such a simple question. Yet...still no answers. Fancy a shot Francois?

Here's an even better thread for Francois in particular. A real simple question: when did Oswald make the decision to assassinate Kennedy? Given that LNers, by definition, believe Oswald to be the only culprit then this surely must be their area of expertise. Surely! Students of the myriad conspiracy theories have to master several disciplines to quite a high standard (autopsy, ballistics, photography etc...) in order to fully understand the evidence. It's not easy. As we know, there are huge discepencies in how some of this evidence is translated; that is to be expected. After all there is so much of it. But for LNers the equation is much simpler: for they just have the one discipline to master - Understand Oswald. You guys must be the experts on this one and only discipline required to solve the crime. Understand Oswald. It's all you've got to do! He's your boy! You've had half a century. Sell it! Teach us! When did Oswald make the decision to assassinate Kennedy? Of course, an absence of an answer, or an evasion along the lines of "It is impossible to know" will be treated as a total lack of evidence that he ever made such a decision.