Jump to content
The Education Forum

Bernie Laverick

Members
  • Posts

    586
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bernie Laverick

  1. Armstrong's pulling his hair out again! "Jimbo!!! Get yourself down here right this minute and rescue Larsen!!! Who left him on his own???" Ever heard of David Icke Sandy? Have a look on his forum. They believe that JFK wasn't actually killed. No, seriously. If you like mind-bending and mind-boggling conspiracies this site is for you. I'm fascinated to know what you would make of it. Your reaction could range from..."Yes, I'm a member" to..."These people are barking mad!" Here's a taster... JFK was a subordinate to the truth, incidentally. And so higher ranking reptilians crossed out JFK because he was a vehicle for an entity that led him to powers of control that was contested by the reptilian overseers. These overseers found his power or enlightenment to be too engaging with the public or rather they failed to see some sort of potential in JFK and had to correct their error.
  2. Yes we all know about this incident because the ENTIRE "tooth missing" story derives from this one event. So now you are confident that 'Lee' had a missing tooth based on one witness testimony who apparently "thought" the tooth pierced the lip while being knocked out. (Wouldn't it need to be attached to pierce something??) Other than that there is a grainy B&W photo and a bit of hearsay. That's it! But if you are so confident... Name me just one more person who could corroborate this? Have you even looked?
  3. This just gets sillier by the second... You seem to have a big problem following this Sandy. "Those who knew Lee (the Oswald with the broken tooth) were largely ignored by the FBI because their stories contradicted the stories of those who knew Harvey" Yes but they weren't largely ignored by H&L supporters were they??? They account for 50% of the entire story. You assume a doppelganger because these witnesses all described seeing 'Lee' when 'Harvey' was some place else; but NONE of them supply the killer detail of a missing front tooth!! These are YOUR witnesses. Nothing to do with the official investigation or what the authorities were looking for. It's YOU that's looking for this. And you still haven't found ANYONE who can remember seeing Oswald, at Bolton Ford, for example, and him having a missing tooth. "Yes I would mention the broken tooth to authorities if my friend ever went missing. Yes, of course you would, because that would be a significant and important detail. And most people who met your friend would also add that detail if asked to give a general description. Maybe a few may not. Most would.. But so what? The Oswald who allegedly shot Kennedy didn't go missing." Yes, but we are not talking of 'that' Oswald, are we? We are talking of your alleged doppelganger, who had a mastoid operation as a young boy which was confirmed by examinations to his corpse. The same corpse had no teeth missing. You now have to show us more proof than an old B&W photo that 'Lee' did indeed have a tooth missing. You can't look to witness testimony because ALL the people YOU ask us to take seriously who said they saw 'Lee' when 'Harvey was somewhere else never once mentioned him having a tooth missing. You seem to take this as PROOF that he DID have a tooth missing. You can't seem to get your head around this can you Sandy? Lee wasn't the focus of the investigation, Harvey was Oh crumbs! Please stop this... 'Lee' has been, and is right now, the focus of YOUR (H&L) investigation. It is YOU I am asking to give me testimony that backs up 'Lee' having a missing tooth. I don't expect the authorities to provide this and couldn't care less what they would say anyway. It is your story. It is your contention. You have to explain why NONE of your witnesses describe him having a missing tooth. Either ALL of these people who saw 'Lee', told their stories, described the event, described the clothing, conversations, and even described the mood and demeanour, yet none mentioned his missing tooth. NONE of them! These are YOUR star witnesses too, the ones that keep the fires of H&L burning, yet even they can't help you here. It was either that, as ridiculously unlikely as that would seem to normal people OR...he never had any teeth missing in the first place, as per his corpse. And...finally But so what? The Oswald who allegedly shot Kennedy didn't go missing." Correct!! There they are for all to see on the corpse of the one and only LHO
  4. I've mentioned my friend to others I know and yet have never mentioned that he lost one of his teeth. Is your friend in any way attached to the assassination of the century? Have you ever had to describe your friend to anyone in authority? If your friend ever went missing you would DEFINITELY describe the missing tooth!!!!! Wouldn't you? And that's just for a missing person! Sandy has deduced that because his friend has a missing tooth and he never mentions it, that everybody else in this world behaves exactly the same when they see someone with a missing tooth. Even when being asked for a detailed description of said person in a high profile murder case... The world is a little bigger than you think Sandy. So when being asked about the description of the person identical to the one presumed guilty of the most notorious assassination in history, NONE of the witnesses mentioned his dental status because they believed it wasn't "important of interesting"? Note too, these are YOUR witnesses upon which 50% of the entire fallacy rests. Why wouldn't it be important (and/or interesting) for witnesses to describe exactly what they saw? One witness, I forget her name, noticed how "shifty" he looked. She noticed that minute detail... but not his missing front tooth? You may think facts like these aren't "important or interesting, but then again, why would you? You've shown us how much of a "truth-seeker" you aren't by the following statement... "I've always said that it would be interesting to know how it was done, but that knowing how isn't important" Exactly! Sums it up perfectly. You have no proof or details or evidence but it must be so for everything else to fit! Chronic circular thinking! Do you think that is how a detective approaches a murder? Decides who has done it, (despite the evidence proving otherwise) but then refuses point blank to say how, just "we know he did it so such questions of how aren't important of interesting". Is that how you would approach a murder inquiry? Silly question. You already are...
  5. Not ONE witness who apparently saw 'Lee' while 'Harvey' was in Russia mentioned a missing tooth. You'd probably notice something like that right? But NONE of them did. So just because there is no official record of the tooth being lost you'd think, just maybe, it would still have been noticeable? Have you now gone back to "it was done post mortem" again? You need to read Jerry's recent post on that. Even Jim has now ruled this out. So why, when they did the mastoidectomy on Harvey to match up with 'Lee's' documented operation, didn't they simply remove the tooth? I wish we could have an agreed explanation from the H&L supporters as to how 'Lee's' head and body was exhumed from the grave of 'Harvey'. 1 - Was it done when 'Harvey' was a youth? 2 - Was it done post mortem? 3 - Were the findings somehow faked? You all keep switching back and forth from one to the other. ALL of you have at some point suggested all three!!! Sandy, you're heart's not really in this anymore is it? Only pride is keeping you there, you do know that don't you?
  6. Perfect. Good point re the other witnesses. They all say he looked "just like the guy we saw on the telly being shot". But NONE of them ever mentioned that 'Lee' had a tooth missing. I wonder why.
  7. By pure accident unrelated 'Harvey' and 'Lee' managed to grow up looking identical through no help from the CIA. But as an ultra secure expedient they decided to perform a mastoidectomy on 'Harvey' so he would look even more identical to 'Lee' when one of them was inevitably dug up years later. The question I am asking you Sandy is, erm........ why didn't they chip his tooth at the same time? Oops!
  8. Let's get this straight. 'Lee' had a chipped tooth and had had a mastoid operation. So for that to have been LHO's body there must be a chipped tooth, if you are correct, and evidence of a mastoidectomy. The mastoidectomy was confirmed, as per the medical record telling us that he had had it. We have something in the medical record and an exhumation which proves just that. What do you have for the missing tooth? A grainy B&W photo that is impossible to tell. That's it. Anyway, so you've all switched back to "It was faked" again have you? Eight posts (24 hours) ago it was "most likely" done in 1952/3 in New York, according to Jim. Now you've all gone back to "It was faked"! Come on Sandy, keep up, you're not slithering and a sliding in time with your gurus. You can't just keep holding the one position here. You have to mix it up a bit more. So the boy that definitely had a mastoid operation and who a few think may have had a tooth missing is the one in that coffin. The mastoid is confirmed but the tooth is not. Rather than accept being wrong about the tooth you have to make up a ridiculous scenario (yet another one!) that to you proves that this is a different body to the one who had a mastoid operation. Like I said earlier. Ha ha ha
  9. The Marine in the photo is Harvey, and so naturally his teeth match the exhumation dental photo. The boy with the missing tooth in Ed Voebel’s classroom photo is LEE, whose teeth do NOT match the exhumation photo. Didn't the CIA plotters know how to remove a tooth from a corpse? But that doesn't matter now does it, because you've once again slithered away to a new position not requiring the risible scenarios that Jerry has eloquently demonstrated. Consequently, you've now had to abandon the "it was faked" nonsense...(for now!) Firstly you claimed that the exhumation had been faked; you've now rejected that. You then claimed that the mastoid operation could have been done after death, and you've now firmly rejected that too. So we're back to square one. 'Harvey' did have exactly the same operation "most likely" in 1952/3 in New York. Most likely? It wasn't likely at all a few days ago when you were adamantly pushing that the identical mastoid scar was the result of a faked exhumation report! Typically no proof and not one single jot of evidence is provided. It must have happened this way, "somehow", because the H&L story doesn't fit any other way. That's the logic provided here. So now, "most likely" 'Harvey' had an exact obtuse operation performed on him as a youth presumably so as to perfectly match up to doppelganger 'Lee' in case one day his body is dug up and the dastardly plot is revealed. Or maybe, coincidentally, and fortuitous for the H&L cult, 'Harvey' just independently acquired the exact same medical condition before growing up to look identical to his pre chosen doppelganger; a doppelganger never seen or heard of again since the weekend of the assassination, along with his doppelganger mother who also disappeared from the face of the earth around this time... Only very lost souls can buy this, surely? But no, you have an old B&W photo of a boy, a few pixels of which gives the impression of a small gap that you have incorrectly interpreted as a missing tooth. If only there was a way to discover if LHO had a missing tooth. I wonder how we could do that? If only we had access to his interred skull we would know for definite. He should have a mastoid scar and a missing tooth.. He has the mastoid but not the missing truth. There. That is the proof that you are wrong! He DIDN'T have a missing tooth. But rather than simply accept that, and all the consequences that come with it, you'd prefer to waste everyone's time with the ridiculous nonsense you have suggested above. Time to go and try sell something else Jim, your sales pitch is getting tired and uninspired.
  10. Ha ha ha!!! They went to all that trouble of faking a mastoid operation... but forgot to simply chip the tooth? They knew 'Lee' had a chipped tooth right? You keep saying that, so it must have been true. So why didn't they just simply chip 'Harvey's' tooth along with doing the mastoidectomy? Ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  11. Oh Sandy what are we going to do with you...? So you now believe that the teeth of the corpse exhumed from that grave are from Harvey's mouth. You can see the match, you say? This is the corpse that somehow had a mastoid operation scar so as to replicate 'Lee's' medical record. You haven't explained how, but let's suppose you are right, let's concede that they somehow faked the mastoidectomy scar. It would be an extreme act don't you think? The plotters would have had to pull off something stunning to do this. But needs must, you say. These people are capable of anything in order to conceal this plot, you say. But damn it! They just couldn't chip one of the teeth so it would match how you interpret 'Lee's' dental status? Really? Why wouldn't they have done that? They did a mastoid operation either when 'Harvey' was six, or they did it when he was dead, according to you. But they didn't make sure to chip one of 'Harvey's' teeth? Mark Twain - "It's easier to fool people... than convince them they have been fooled!" Say goodnight Gracy...
  12. I've been thinking about stuff and trying to get my head around the H&L cult mind-set. Then I thought, given the super bad guys are capable of anything and that is all one needs for a theory, let's try this. As you can see below, these are clearly two different men. I mean, ahem...the sloping shoulders? Is it remotely possible that there were two JFKs? One, the doppelganger, did the shooting because who would ever believe that JFK shot JFK? It's so fiendishly clever and perfectly in line with what these super bad guys are capable of that I'm surprised no one has thought about it before. Jackie would have been in on it too, in fact there is proof of there been two Jackies because on one picture she is young and attractive and the other, taken a few decades later, she looks older and more middle aged. What more proof do we need? This avenue of thought needs investigating... ...?
  13. And it's no good saying "Yes, but all the other evidence is so compelling" so we can skip around the exhumation and its findings. As I said before, it's like a LN accepting that Oswald was on the steps of the TSBD but still insisting that he was the shooter because "...all the other evidence is so compelling". If he WAS on the steps then all the other evidence is self evidently meaningless and not worth discussing anymore. Who cares about the "curtain rods"? Who cares about any of the other false narratives. Being on the steps trumps all the other 'evidence'. Full stop. Likewise with 'Lee's' exhumation (when it should have been 'Harvey'!) and the subsequent peer reviewed study of its findings. It trumps all your other evidence - none of which was at all conclusive and anyway could be explained without recourse to far out fantasy - so you have finally come to the end of the road, I say road, more of dirt track leading up to a high cliff. Do the decent thing and throw that damned book off the edge of it!
  14. Here's another thing about the whole H&L cult...they are NEVER wrong! They have never EVER made a mistake and EVERYTHING that is written in H&L is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Not one single jot of it is wrong. Apparently... Are we to believe that there isn't one factual error in this book? Not even one? If so...which? With the benefit of hindsight, where did Armstrong err or go slightly wrong? Even Darwin made a few mistakes, as you would expect. But Armstrong wrote over 1,000 pages and not one bit of it is incorrect according to his congregation. How likely is that? So in the spirit of self honesty could you list all the things that you now know that Armstrong got wrong? And while you're t it, could you make another one listing all the NEW evidence that has emerged since the H&L publication. After 20 odd years that list should now be bigger than the book itself. But in all these forum debates you have never once revealed anything you have found yourselves. Your WHOLE debate is centred on what Armstrong wrote a quarter of a century ago which we have now discovered was effectively debunked two decades prior to that! If you believe this story to be true why aren't you doing anything about it? Why haven't you got off your backsides to go look for all the other 'clues' that must still be floating around if this is the truth? Orwell, a huge fan of murder mysteries, once said truth is a like a dead body..."it will always out in the end". So why aren't you still looking? Why keep parroting someone else's work when more truth is still out there for you to find for yourselves? Is the reason you bring nothing new to the table because there is nothing new you have found? Or are you just being coy and playing hard to get?
  15. Well it was. So now you know. We know it was Lee's skull because it fitted perfectly with LHO's own medical record. This is a big big problem for you, I understand that. I also understand all the flailing about too. If it is Lee's skull then H&L is a crock of nonsense. So you now have absolutely no choice other than to desperately try and prove that it isn't. But you have absolutely nothing to go on. Nothing! "They performed it when he was a 6 year old" "They did the operation on 'Harvey's' dead body" (your preferred explanation!) "The concrete company were all in on it" And lastly, the fall back position for everything you believe in..."It was faked". No evidence is offered other than paranoid supposition and endless what-if-ary. "These bad guys are capable of anything..." is the ONLY 'proof' they have. I think there is yet another Oswald, living on the moon, waiting to perform another assassination but with total deniability. After all these people are capable of anything so any accusation against them must be the truth. Barking mad...and creepily scary with it. (You don't all own motels do you?)
  16. This is getting more and more absurd. Neither Jim or Sandy have offered an explanation as to why 'Lee's' skull was found in Harvey's grave. They have offered... 1) The same mastoid operation was performed on young 'Harvey' at some un-named location by unknown persons so that the skulls would match should he ever be dug up after death (yet clumsily, they forgot to chip one of the teeth while they were at it thus destroying the whole plot!) 2) They performed the operation on a dead body despite there been copious evidence of natural healing. 3) They faked it. But if so, we would then have to add all those involved to the TWENTY TWO others, according to Jim, who knew about H&L. If you believe it to be 3, then the onus is on you to provide proof or evidence to back that up. But all we get is "These people are baaad people, capable of anything..." etc... That's it? That's your proof? Your own rampant paranoia? Grow up!
  17. No missing front tooth eh? Then it can't have been missing in the first place because...well, look! Nothing's missing! And yet we know for a FACT that this is 'Lee's' skull because of the mastoid scar and your admission that none of those involved in the exhumation had faked the findings. So what is the point of this post? Are you seriously trying to prove that that body must belong to someone other than 'Lee'? Despite the kicking you have all just had on that very subject? Really?? A much less arrogant person would stay well clear of the body in that grave especially when you demonstrably cannot explain why or how it even got there!
  18. He does this every time he is incapable of addressing a basic flaw in the cultish fantasy he adheres to. So, he does it quite a lot. He'll start insulting my family next, you watch.
  19. Does this mean you don't know why 'Lee's' head was found in 'Harvey's' grave? It does doesn't it? The exhumation findings weren't tampered with according to Jim, otherwise he would have agreed that they too can be added to the extensive list of those who knew of this 'plot'. So unless you can give a good explanation, preferably with documented evidence, as to why this doesn't totally compromise the entire H&L narrative reasonably minded people will draw their own conclusions. That's why you have sold less H&L books than there are people involved in the plot. It must make you feel very important (and at the same time a little fearful) that you, and you alone, are the discoverers of this real truth, and that only incisive minds like yours can see through the super bad guys' toxic plots. Surely they will be at least tapping your phone; probably even have photo surveillance on you at all times. After all, you H&L crew are very few but, you are lethal. You must be pissing off a lot of very powerful people with all these revelations. I mean, if they are prepared to perform a mastoid operation on a dead body just to preserve this plot, what would they do with those who are actively and publically exposing it? Evidently...NOTHING! If what you are saying were to be the truth... you would have been shut down years ago! The fact that nobody in a position of power is stopping you spout this nonsense is itself self-evident proof that it has no basis in fact. Check mate!
  20. How did 'Lee's' head turn up in 'Harvey's' grave? Now Jim has specifically ruled out those involved in the exhumation as being responsible for faking the findings, maybe you would like to take a stab at trying to figure out how and why the skull of LHO was found in the grave of LHO. Until you answer this everything else is totally meaningless. So where is 'Harvey' buried? Or, did he live and it was 'Lee' who was shot by Ruby? That would explain the exact mastoid scar right? But where does that leave the H&L story? Dead and buried. Problem is... you keep exhuming it! And each time you do the smell becomes worse as the soft tissues of your cultish fantasy rot before our eyes and nose. Please, show yourselves some self-respect and bury this for good.
  21. Yes - 9 a) - Prior knowledge is doubtful – 4 b - No but knew of two Oswalds – 9 c) - No but would have recognised a different person if face to face - 6 The sneaky dishonesty just gets worse doesn't it? ...So we have NINE definites. a) "Prior knowledge"? What does that mean? Prior to what? The obvious implication then is that they too knew of this plot, but they learned beyond your self imposed time limit. Still counts! b ) This is the best one. In response to an exhaustive and highly unlikely list of people who knew of this plot this is Jim's attempt to massage the numbers down. Jim realises that the more people he admits were a part of H&L the more ridiculous the whole thing sounds. So he chooses the formula, "No, but knew of two Oswalds". So who knew of H&L? Not those in this category; they only knew of there being two Oswalds!! Still counts. Sorry. c) That is your opinion only and cannot possibly be tested. Not recognising someone from a blurry photo doesn't count. You said face to face. So what does that sentence actually mean? Did they know that there were two Oswalds? And finally, you have now admitted that the exhumation and its findings weren't in any way faked or falsified. If they had been then those doing it would have known too...right? 22 people by Jim's admission were in on this plot, more if we include some of section c. And there'll be even more next month when this has died down and the motley crew, once again, start posting about the CIA manipulating the exhumation reports. This is what they do. They post a load of nonsense which gets overwhelmingly and cringingly debunked before scurrying off, only to return a few days, weeks, or months later to start the whole process again. You've gone too far this time. You've made utter fools of yourselves! And still you come back for more...
  22. Tracy has on his website the following information. Is it true? If not please tell us which of the following people DIDN'T know about the H&L plot Note: An asterisk denotes those involved in the creation, planning and execution of the plot. CIA James Angleton* Bernard Barker George H.W. Bush Charles Cabell Ann Goodpasture Richard Helms* E. Howard Hunt* David Phillips* Ray Rocca Sergio Arcacha Smith* (assassin) Frank Sturgis Dallas Police Jesse Curry Gus Rose FBI C.D. DeLoach J. Edgar Hoover James Hosty Gordon Shanklin LBJ Cliff Carter Malcolm Wallace Media Hugh Aynesworth (CIA asset) Priscilla Johnson McMillan (CIA asset) Oswald Family & Friends Charles (Dutz) Murret Lillian Murret Marilyn Murret Marguerite Oswald “Historic” Marguerite Oswald “Imposter” Marina Oswald (KGB) Robert Oswald Vada Oswald Michael Paine Ruth Paine American Embassy Moscow Richard Snyder (CIA asset) John McVickar (CIA asset) WC Allen Dulles* Gerald Ford Earl Warren The following people did not actively participate in the plot, but were aware that there were two Marguerites and said nothing. Edward Aizer Mrs. Harry Bodour Dr. Cuthbert Brown Otis Carleton Mrs. Benny Commenge Mrs. Oris Duane Julian Evans Myrtle Evans Herbert Farrell Dr. Bruno Mancuso Edward Pic Viola Peterman Clem Sehrt The following people who attended the exhumation of LHO must have also been in on the plot and instructed to fake the exhumation and stay silent about it. I say this because the exhumation disproves the H&L theory and Armstrong offers no explanation whatsoever for the exhumation findings. Dr. Linda Norton Dr. Vincent DiMaio Dr. James Coffone Dr. Irwin Sopher William Dear (Security) John Cullins (friend of Marina) Hampton Hall (filmed exhumation) Several other assistants of the doctors Wouldn't you think even an eight year old would find this ridiculous?
  23. Why was the southern boy's head found in the grave of 'Harvey' the Hungarian? If you can give a rational explanation as to how that would occur please, it would be awfully nice. I'm going to compile a list of all the people that would have had to be 'in' on this 'plot' At the last count it was somewhere over thirty! Now we have those involved in the exhumation and the subsequent peer reviewed report to add to the list. I think there are more people on that list than have bought the book!
  24. Ha ha ha!!! That's it then? That's all you have? The entire H&L charade pivots entirely on your ability to give a plausible explanation along with DIRECT evidence to back it up how 'Lee's' head and body were found in 'Harvey's' grave...and that's all you can muster? Seriously? So there we have it. It was faked because the other 'evidence' is so "overwhelming". Circular thinking of the scariest order. So there is no "direct" proof of this. The only "indirect proof" is that it doesn't fit into the narrative you believe in - in fact, it thoroughly demolishes it - so that leaves only one alternative. It's faked! Don't you think that's a tad arrogant? The one piece of this fantasy that can, and has been, subject to a peer reviewed study published in a reputable journal confirms the medical record and proved conclusively that LHO (the person exhumed; not Harvey!) had had a mastoid operation as a boy. To all reasonable people that now totally demolishes the H&L narrative unless you can provide COMPELLING proof that this was in some way faked. But YOU must show this. Saying it must be faked because that means everything else you have been promoting as an uber-complex plot falls apart is, characteristically, thoroughly dishonest. If that body was LHO, which it was, it proves conclusively that all the other anomalies have a perfectly understandable explanation. An explanation that this exhumation makes redundant. Who cares that the school records are confusing or that there's one photo of sloping shoulders etc..? Clearly this body belongs to the one and only LHO, and is, to be sure, as dead as Armstrong's theory. Are we done now?
×
×
  • Create New...