Bernie Laverick

Fed up with the Bolton Ford fiasco we now move on to the riveting story of the sloping shoulders. AGAIN!!! You see the two photos you posted with the lines drawn on them? Do you see them? Ok, now tell me that those two individuals don't look remarkably similar (if not identical) notwithstanding the sloping shoulders! There is a very slight difference that is totally consistent with the differing ages of the one and only LHO. One (Slopey) looks like a late teenage version of the other (Squarey). Because that is what it is! I dare you to state that facially, they look totally different. You really don't want to do you? But you must because the consequences of not doing so bring this whole house of sloping shoulders crashing to the ground. Who would have thought that two random, unrelated people could grow up to look so similar? It does happen. But now factor in that these two were both chosen at adolescence to create a composite character for some future espionage activity and coincidentally, and with unbelievable good fortune for the planners, they grow into adulthood almost identical as you have just demonstrated...sloping shoulders notwithstanding! Imagine the dialogue when one of the handlers approaches his superior to brief him on the ongoing project. "You're not going to believe this Sir. You remember the two adolescents we recruited to create a fictitious paper trail should one of them defect to the USSR? Well...just look at them now!" Now watch David Josephs try and 'prove' that they don't look anything like each other. I mean, one has sloping shoulders for Christ's sake! And anyway 'Lee' was much taller and more muscular than 'Harvey'...except when he's buying trucks, of course. Then he shrinks and looks like he "needs a good meal"! Comedy gold!

Do you seriously believe that the KGB might have suspected that the Lee Oswald living in New Orleans might be the same Lee Oswald they had living there in Minsk? I know! What a ridiculous thing to think!!! The very idea that there could be two Oswalds! Of course, the Russians weren't that stupid. Who is? But they would want to know everything they could about him, and would be very suspicious if a look-alikey was using the same name for anti Castro activities. It hardly puts them off the trail does it? Particularly when we learn that for the rest of the time 'Harvey' is in Russia there is absolutely no trace of 'Lee', just this one appearance to buy trucks apparently using his real name, though no proof of that exists, and anyway the person concerned is demonstrably tinier than your strapping sporty marine. And that comes from your star witness, the one who has inspired this fantasy episode. But the bit you don't like - his height - you simply say he was mistaken. Was he mistaken when he said the person looked like he "needed a meal". It wasn't 'Lee'; grow up and get over yourselves!

What by having his doppelganger buy some trucks using his own name? How is that hiding his 'connections'? This is what the H&L cult do. They tell you there is no evidence of a 'Lee' during Harvey's time in Russia because obviously that would have blown the whole thing. I get that. It's dishonest, but it is a consistent argument; it may even have had some credibility but one of your cornerstone beliefs in the two Oswalds now has the same doppelganger you've spent years telling us had to be kept under wraps out buying stuff and publically using his real name. Why would they do that? Not one of you has the integrity or basic honesty to address this very simple point. Why were 'his' handlers so reckless and Keystone Cops-like in allowing this to happen? (You really ought to see someone about your obsession with Einstein. Repeating his name on every post doesn't make you as clever as him you know...)

Very good Sandy, you've been promoted to whatever rank Steve Gaal had in your microscopic circle of delusional middle aged men who think they have made themselves look so very important. If only the rest of humanity had the same levels of intelligence we too would be able to follow all of this. "The obvious thing for the KGB to do was to piece together the background of their Oswald and see if it led to any intelligence connections." No, that's the silliest thing I've ever heard on this forum. But it just wheedles you out of a large hole, but straight into an even bigger one. His background and his present situation all led to intelligence connections! He was in Russia, spying for the USA! Now they hear through the intelligence grapevine that there is another LHO heavily involved in anti Castro activities buying trucks in his own name. Why do you think the Russians would NEVER EVER have got this information. Do you know anything about the world of espionage? You seriously consider that such a high profile defection isn't going to be compromised by having the doppelganger appearing here there and everywhere? But in other conversations where we ask for proof of ''Lee's' existence you laugh at us and say that he was kept strictly under control in a safe house precisely so as not to compromise the project, which it obviously would if he were allowed out to go and buy trucks in his own name. Now this childish piece of nonsense has been overwhelmingly disproved Jim wants to change the subject...AGAIN...just as we all predicted. H&L = LN

By having one of them introduced to him by Jack White, a researcher who contributed to H&L and who was a fervent supporter of the theory, as he was with Chemtrails, moon landings, and a few other far out conspiracies. He declared that he was a personal friend of Kudlaty and had known him for over 50 years. Jack himself revealed this on another H&L topic on this forum. He mentioned it so as to bolster up Kudlaty's credibility by vouching for his integrity based on the many years of friendship. Can you not see a clear conflict of interest here? Jack did, because he then backpedalled and denied he was Kudlaty's friend, rather it was his wife's friend, and that Jack had only ever met him three or four times in 50 years. It's all on here for folk to see for themselves. I wouldn't normally raise something like this when the person concerned is sadly no longer with us. I have no intention of trying to blacken Jack's name, particularly because he can't respond, but this information is publically available and it needs to be said. Kudlaty came to Armstrong's attention through Jack White, a fellow researcher who also believed in H&L and who was a personal friend of the witness this information came from thirty years after it happened. As such, his testimony is tainted and cannot be trusted.

"The Oswald Project was about planting a Russian speaking spy in the Soviet Union and having an innocent looking background on him available for the Soviets to see if they bothered to do a background check on him." So...why did they allow 'Lee' to go and buy some trucks using his real name while a rudimentary "background check on him" could possibly reveal this? What would the KGB have thought had they received this information? Why take such a monumental risk? You have him locked up in a safe house for the full time 'Harvey' is in Russia so as not the compromise the integrity of the defection plot but based on the flimsiest bit of 'evidence' - the word Oswald! - you make this tortuous link to an appalling B movie script even if it totally defeats your own rationale. As for Sewell being wrong about the height, was he also wrong about him "needing a meal"? That's not like our 'Lee'. Our 'Lee' is big and muscular and did NOT look like he needed a meal, or why would you spend so much time illustrating how big, and therefore different, he was to 'Harvey'. Oops!

Because Fred Sewell missed Lee Oswald’s height by four or five inches, you try to pretend that both he and Oscar Deslatte were wrong about thinking they both had met “Lee Harvey Oswald.” Er, yes...! That is a huge margin of error. Too much. So your theory goes out of the window. Is there a reason his handlers decided to trash over a decade's worth of elaborate intrigue and allow tiny little 'Lee' to deliberately blow his cover by buying trucks using his real name? Why won't you answer this? Because you can't without exposing how utterly childish this nonsense has become. So what's next Jim? Taiwan? School records? Or will you now plump for a gigantic info dump?

Ha ha ha!!!! So when your star witness says something that doesn't fit your fantasy you simply ignore it and assume he must have been mistaken. No, Mr Sewell was probably more interested in HIS bank account, as were many other chancers, (like Bledsoe's son) who thought they may be able to make a quick buck out of the assassination. Why have you not addressed the absurdity of allowing the small and weedy 'doppelganger' being allowed to go and buy trucks from someone who may at some later stage reveal this and thus blow the whole thing? (I say "blow", but it doesn't even fit with YOUR narrative because the doppelganger should have been a good 4" + taller!!).

Taken from the link Jim provided above... "By the way, you'd better put my name down there because I'm the man handling the money." When Deslatte asked, "What's your name?" the man replied, "Lee Oswald.” Laughable! This perfectly manicured plot involving the most mind boggling intricacy suddenly falls apart when the doppelganger OPENLY goes out to buy trucks and insists on using his own name!! “Sewell described Lee Oswald as, "5-foot-6 or 5-foot-7, thin, about 140 pounds, and thought he needed a meal and a haircut.” Is this the same strapping and muscular 5’ 11” Lee? Or is there a trippelganger who is neither ‘Harvey’ nor ‘Lee’? The above sounds more like Lee Harvey Oswald, (‘Harvey’ to you) but it couldn’t have been, because he was in Russia. So what do you actually have? Sewell went on to say that the Oswald he saw at the Bolton dealership “appears to be the same man” he saw on television after the President was shot. Ah, so ‘they’ did look similar after all! They will object of course and tell us that USA based doppelganger ‘Lee’ was big and muscular and defector ‘Harvey’ was small and weedy. So how did the small and weedy one turn up at Bolton Ford when he was supposed to be in Russia? If the man Sewell saw was no bigger than 5’ 7” then clearly that couldn’t have been ‘Lee’, Harvey’s official doppelganger. Common sense also negates the notion that ‘Lee’s’ handlers would have allowed him to go and buy some trucks using his own name (!!) while his double is in Russia. In other conversations they are telling us the absolute necessity of keeping him in a “safe house” during ‘Harvey’s’ defection so as to not blow his cover. This is the reason, they say, that they can’t provide any details of where ‘Lee’ was living during this period because he was strictly kept under wraps... Except to go out buying trucks, thus destroying years and years of meticulous planning. How delusional do you have to be to accept this childish nonsense?

Michael, I don't believe for one minute that Jim believes any of this nonsense. I don't think Armstrong does either. It's not about H&L, it's about maintaining the official view that LHO shot Kennedy. H&L doesn't add to the investigation as to who carried out the assassination, it is an exotic sideshow designed to divert attention and bog down good researchers. We are often accused of being naïve, that we don't understand the lengths the CIA would go to achieve its agenda, that we can't comprehend the dark, very dark, methods being used, that they will try everything they can to cover up past misdeeds. But they are wrong. I'd even go as far as to say that as part of the ongoing deception, the CIA would certainly be capable of cooking up something like H&L, given their vast resources, precisely in order to split assassination researchers and create a narrative so wacky, it could even make the national media. That is its design and purpose. Imagine if Hargrove was asked to do an interview on the assassination of JFK on a mainstream broadcasting network, what would he talk about? Seriously, what? The Stripling school records? The two Oswalds' identical mastoid operations? The height 'discrepancies'? What the **** has all that got to do with the assassination of JFK? Can you imagine the response? Credit where credit is due, H&L is the most sophisticated LN web yet weaved. DVP says it loud and proud, but these guys hide behind an elaborate saga, unified by their tortuous 'bible', and aggressively push it on every topic, desperately trying to offer a more exciting 'scent' to follow. But it leads nowhere! That is the point. And that is why people like me take great delight in exposing their deception. It's just too easy.

Wasn't Jack White the one who put Armstrong and Kudlaty together? And wasn't Jack White, when challenged on Kudlaty's reliability, the one who revealed that he had known him for "over 50 years" and could "personally vouch for his credibility"? So we have a researcher who is hooked on H&L, Jack White, offering up personal friends like Frank Kudlaty, to tell the 'story' of some missing school records... Jack realised his schoolboy blunder and then tried to tell us that it was his wife who knew Kudlaty and that he had only ever met him 3 or 4 times in 50 years. Why that meant he could vouch for his credibility I really don't know. Clearly White did know Kudlaty and their connection is at the heart of this particular piece of H&L deception. It stinks!! Scratch the surface of this 'theory' and it's just a pond of wriggling lies... Oh dear, it's all falling to pieces isn't it?

"Suppose you are driving your spacecraft near the speed of light. You can't see what's ahead, so you turn on your headlights. What will happen?" I've not read this chapter from H&L, I'm sure it will be wonderfully illuminating. Meanwhile, back on planet Earth... I'm as confident as one can possibly be that Einstein would never have believed that any intelligence service could co opt two unrelated children for the purposes of some unknown covert operation who then grew into adulthood looking almost identical. By pure undiluted coincidence? What are the odds of that happening? Are they bigger than a mastoid operation being carried out on an under ten year old doppelganger so as to match the scars of the person he is impersonating should he ever be exhumed thirty years later? And if this top secret programme really was so top secret how come 'Lee' was allowed to buy trucks using his real name and be in places that would certainly blow his cover? And for the eightieth time of asking...what evidence exists of where 'Lee' lived during the time 'Harvey' was in Russia? They never EVER answer these questions because, well, how can they without looking very silly. Info dump alert!!!! Change of subject alert!!! Abuse alert!!!! Cointelpro accusation alert!!!

"The point wasn't that they looked alike..." So why did so many people mistake 'one' for the 'other'? The photos you've just posted only confirm how creepily similar they were, or even identical...or the same person! Look at them!! "We truly do no know the origin of Harvey..." As if this has anything to do with the question being asked, but it does divert from the impossibility of explaining this part of the fantasy. Apparently to answer the question as to whether 'Harvey' looked similar to 'Lee' one has to consult with someone "who understands the inner workings of the planning minds at the CIA/FBI" Only they are qualified to make that judgement. But surely those who saw 'Lee' whilst 'Harvey' was in Russia were qualified or your theory crumbles. Still any idea where 'Lee' was living while 'Harvey' was in Russia? Anything at all? Steve Gaal used to say, with absolutely no evidence, that he was kept in a CIA safe-house. But seemingly he was occasionally allowed out to go and buy trucks using his real name... Wasn't he also caught doing a bit of fishing in another H&L chapter? This doesn't sound like some highly charged CIA plot to meld two characters from adolescence under the strictest secrecy in order to use one as a patsy in an assassination that hadn't even been planned then. It sounds more like a an episode from The Keystone Cops... H&L = LN Never forget that!

Did 'Harvey' look similar enough to Lee that many people mistook one for the other? Bearing in mind that a huge part of the H&L evidence relies on witnesses saying they saw one while the other was somewhere else, they must have looked very similar if not identical. How did the planners know that this would happen when they were recruited as children?

This is a well worn tactic by Josephs, he just can't stop himself! They dig themselves into a hopeless little hole and then start shouting abuse at anyone who points out how utterly stupid you would have to be to believe any of this facile nonsense. But Josephs doesn't know anywhere near as much as Hargrove, Armstrong's preferred messenger boy, and that embarrasses him. So he turns to abuse and tells people to "man up". Really? In 2017 we still have grown men who think it's perfectly ok to regurgitate this type of pond-life sexism? To all the women who follow this forum my apologies on Josephs' behalf... I notice he also used the "COINTELPRO" nonsense. We have ALL been accused off that by Josephs. Imagine how fantastically delusional you would have to be to think that the CIA have sent dozens of its cointelpro operatives onto the Education Forum to counter what David Josephs is revealing!! You really aren't that important mister! The H&L cult have many ways to deflect and confuse the issues, information dumps, ones that we have all seen a thousand times before, changing the subject when the going gets tough, honest 'mistakes' (all of which are in their favour!) but when they are called out on them all, as they are repeatedly, they turn to abuse. Repeatedly. It is totally pointless arguing with them. There are more than enough counter arguments out there and the theory/fantasy has been well and truly debunked a thousand times over. And now we have the planners carrying out a mastoid operation on a young lad in case one day his body is exhumed and the whole plot is discovered. But they have no problem sending 'Lee' out to go buy trucks using his real name while Harvey is in Russia... Ha ha ha!!! Priceless! Where was 'Lee' living during the time 'Harvey' was in Russia? Surely there must be some record somewhere of where he was living. But nope, they have nothing! Just an attempt to buy some trucks using his real name... Only the disenfranchised and the hopelessly demoralised will fall for this anyway: but once they have, it has them in their grip for life. The H&L book is spoken of in the same manner befitting of a fundamentalist ChristianMuslim talking of their book. We, the "non believers" need crushing. Yes, that's what they actually call us. "Non believers". It's really quite scary. In twenty years Armstrong's H&L has made absolutely no impact whatsoever on the investigation into the assassination of JFK, and it has recruited less than a dozen converts! We give them the oxygen they don't deserve. We are to blame for this nonsense. I don't argue with flat-earthers so why do I waste my time with this? I really don't know. All it does is push the topic further up the reading list. We should now just leave them alone and let them play. The crux is this. Did 'Harvey' look similar enough to Lee that many people mistook one for the other? Bearing in mind that a huge part of the H&L evidence relies on witnesses saying they saw Lee when he couldn't possibly have been there. So they must have looked similar if not identical. How did the planners know that this would happen when they were recruited as children? (Now watch them desperately try and disprove they looked anything like each other, even though the 'sightings' are the very foundation for their entire theory!) Ok, what's it going to be? Abuse? Cool, I couldn't care less. Info dump on Taiwan? Oh please, not again! Sloping shoulders? Manipulated photos? School records? It's all a circus isn't it? But hey, it ties people down, and it discredits reputable and credible researchers by being tarred with this brush and other such ridiculous theories, like Aliens made Jackie do it etc... It's significant that they have done absolutely nothing with all this 'evidence'! NOTHING! No attempt to place the theory anywhere but these types of forums and among other JFK researchers. That says everything. One thing is for absolute certain. They will NOT address what I have written in bold above. It is the Kryptonite that kills this cartoon story. And they know it!

England??? Maybe you are not the scholar you thought you were Jim. England is but a constituent part of the United Kingdom. Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland are the other parts of the UK. They too are constitutionally involved in all foreign policy decisions. Blair's first press conference on becoming PM included an apology to the Irish for Britain's role in the potato famine. This kind of thing was completely unheard of here. An apology? From a British government? About its shabby historical behaviour to another country? This was fresh. It seemed (to some, not me!) that this was to be a break from the old dull politics and a new fresh approach to foreign affairs. The new foreign secretary, Robin Cook, had promoted his "ethical foreign policy" but then went and mysteriously died young, as had Blair's predecessor John Smith. Blair introduced a legal minimum wage, gay rights, ended terrorism in Northern Ireland, and promised a "third way" between corporate dominance and communism. It was all going to be so much different. I repeat, I didn't believe a word of it. I reckoned it was all going to end up like rat-xxxx. Of course we now know that that's what happened. But he bolstered the belief in the free market. And that's all that mattered! He didn't do it with a big stick. He did it by being liberal on those things that cost the establishment nothing! Blair was eventually discredited and rightly so. But that was after he had had 10 years exposure at the top of the tree. JFK had three! Trust me Jim, had he survived this assassination attempt, America would still look very similar to the way it looks today. The forces of history have no sentiment for the ideals of one individual, however courageous they may be. This is the way post industrial capitalism has to travel...assassination or not. Though I would say that Kennedy's vision and scope of liberalism was a lot wider than Blair's, they both unwittingly (Blair less so) performed the same role: that is, provide a human face for a rotten system!

JIm please show me something I stated as a "fact". This is about political opinions: having different ones to you does NOT make me factually incorrect. If someone wants to vote for Clinton and you don't does that make them factually incorrect too? I can only assume that 'Left' must mean something totally different in America to what is generally considered everywhere else. And Jim, let me educate you here...When a politician cynically courts a certain demographic they do so because they calculate that that is how they will win the election NOT because they truly believe in the cause they are promoting. So don't tell me that a man tied up with corruption and graft and who constantly used the word ni**er is now somehow promoted as a totem of the left, because the crass stupidity of that is making my teeth itch! Maybe you need to do some research Jim. Your minutia knowledge of the JFK assassination is astounding: but your knowledge of politics is 9th grade stuff, it really is...

Jim allow me to introduce you to Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders meet someone who doesn't know what 'left' means.... There is a massive and proud history of left wing struggle in your great country. Look up Eugene Debs and the Wobblies; see the power of the unions down the decades who delivered American workers some of the best living standards in the Western world. (As a kid in the 60's I was in awe of my Mum's observation that "even American firemen have swimming pools in their back gardens")! And why not?? And the huge advances made in civil right were more down to the bravery and indefatigable human spirit of those who demonstrated than the flourish of a President's pen. Sometimes, when faced with a determined people fighting for change, it's a good general who will attempt to lead them (against his better judgement) rather than be overthrown by them. Gorbachev, attempted just that, but the Soviet elite had left it far too late. So I repeat, whilst the nuance maybe a lot different (because the historic backdrop is a lot different) nevertheless Obama and JFK represent the same wing of the ruling American establishment (notwithstanding their occasional Samurai slash at some sections of said establishment) who calculate that the 'appearance' of justice and fairness is the safest way to rule. Chuck a few bad eggs off the ship: as long it stays afloat we can still steer it in OUR direction. Better that than a mutiny...then we lose the whole ship! It's not rocket science...

"You are aware of how many people, including the standard liberal establishment, admire his Great Society programs?" Since when did that count as "left"? You're all over the place Jim...

I have immersed myself in left wing politics for nearly 40 years. Trust me Jim, it is YOU who hasn't a clue what you're talking about. If you think that people of the 'left' admired LBJ then you simply haven't the faintest as to what the term 'left' actually means. By definition, someone who politically supported LBJ is a right wing conservative...because that's what he was. It's just silliness and chronic political ignorance. Only in America can you be THAT right wing and STILL be labelled a hero of the left. Astonishing! This is an extremely serious thread and shows why nothing has been achieved. This canonisation of JFK and all he supposedly stood for is what gets in the way. (And btw, planning to assassinate another country's president does also NOT count as being on the 'left'!!) You can't see the evidence because of the tears! At best JFK was slightly liberal. That wing of the establishment, like Obama, believe that the velvet glove is a better way of selling the system rather than Bush's iron fist. Gorbachev, likewise believed that communism could be saved if it just showed it's "human face". It's a political tactic by the elite to prevent civil disorder, or worse, from below In other words these people wanted the same old racket to continue but make it look more inclusive and 'popular'. Inevitably at some point JFK would have turned into Obama. Stuck in the mud with empty promises lying around in tatters. That would have been JFK's fate. With a bit of luck all that "wishy-washy" liberal nonsense will have created a very right wing backlash, just like Obama's done. So maybe some are too politically blind to see the similarities between the Obama and JFK administrations. The only difference is that one was assassinated and therefore almost beautified as a Saint, and Obama wasn't. And for the record Jim I post under my own name; ROKC is the place to go if you want to see some honest and fresh new research but I am NOT their spokesperson. Just for the record...

"...leftists, for example, loved LBJ or Chief Justice Warren, and lean away from conspiracy because they can't stomach the thought their heroes collaborated on a cover-up...." Leftists who loved LBJ??? You seriously believe that someone who regards themselves as "left" sees the likes of LBJ and Earl Warren as "heroes"??? Only in America could anyone possibly think that some rag-bag racist piece of xxxxx like LBJ was a hero for the "left". The political naivety is just astonishing! For the real left, the JFK assassination is but part of a chain of political events that demonstrate the will and the power of a muscular economic elite determined to carry out their agenda of global domination. Anyone who stands in their way will either be vilified, framed, or eliminated. This is the reality of corporate planet earth. Power buys power. And no one is allowed to get through the net. Though Lance has more than a point. Was JFK really a 'threat' to this elite? Or was he really just a part of it? Was JFK no more than a more glamorous version of Gorbachev desperately trying to make the system more appealing to many who felt disenfranchised? Gorbachev was a dyed in the wool communist; he just calculated that in the wider interests of the privileged Party elite, and in order to retain those privileges, it was expedient to 'open up' and become more inclusive thus justifying their positions before anger from below overthrew them with civil disorder. I believe that JFK (and more recently Obama) had exactly the same mind set. In other words, they are as much a part of the problems humanity finds itself in than the solution. There has been much canonisation of JFK and nearly all of it is due to him being struck down so violently and so young. Had he not been assassinated I truly doubt he would have carried that aura of wonder now so readily ascribed to him because of the tragic circumstances. We once had a bright young photogenic Prime Minister here in England in 1997. All the cool rock stars and actors wanted to be seen with him and he with them. It was new, young and fresh and he was going to take Britain in a new exciting direction. Unfortunately he lasted for 11 years and is now seen as possibly one of the most unpopular PMs we have ever had and soon maybe indicted for war crimes. Had his premiership been cruelly struck down no doubt we would all be talking about the GREAT Tony Blair and how the world would have been at peace had he lived, bla bla bla Here's another bit of bitter truth to chew on. Hendrix was an awful guitarist. Get over it!

Lance, I have watched you utterly destroy the H&L crowd with your impeccable logic and persuasive elegance. It's been a delight to watch. But in many ways maybe you have fallen victim to their tactics and reason for existence. I just hope you don't throw the baby out with all that dirty bathwater. Some researchers have integrity and are not just interested in selling their particular 'brand'. Some don't just cling onto a theory for dear life despite overwhelming new evidence to the contrary, and some are prepared to admit their errors and change their views accordingly. Those espousing PM all fit into that category. If it's wrong, it's wrong and it's back to the drawing board. A high resolution scan of the PM film would prove conclusively who is stood in that doorway. Should it be the case that it is LHO then your talk of 'sophistication' goes right out of the window. Maybe the initial plot didn't need a patsy. Maybe it was meant to look like a conspiracy for other reasons? If the objective was to soften up the American public for an invasion of Cuba, a conspiracy with unknown confederates "still on the loose" would have served this purpose better. I believe vital sections of the American establishment, horrified by the potential perilous global consequences, insisted on the investigation being closed down. "Find us a LN! And now!" The miniscule problem of Lance or Bernie 50 odd years down the road insisting that there may be a problem with the lunch room timeline, or a possible glimpse of the assassin in the wrong place pales somewhat with the real possibility there and then of a chain of events that could very easily have led to WW3. Which problem would you rather have to deal with?

...Demolishing Harvey & Lee by the looks of it. I'd hire him! Please be warned Lance that you will now be subject to a hail of personal abuse, vilification, and an intensive and intrusive search of your online profile looking for anything that 'proves' you are COINTELPRO. You have arrived at Tin Foil Hat Central where even the slightest deviation from the Guru's wise words condemn you as a spook paid to carry on with the work of covering up the laughable, almost Scooby-Doo like, H&L scenario! You'd have got away with it too... If it wasn't for those pesky kids!

"The same folks who sent someone resembling “Oswald” and using his name..." "The same conspirators who sent an “Oswald” lookalike to the Southland Hotel parking garage" and "The same people who sent a fellow who looked like “Oswald” And another Oswald” lookalike on RL Freeway... Four references to a "lookalike" in just four paragraphs on post #58. When challenged on the risibility of such an unlikely scenario, we get this.... "Russian-speaking Harvey and American-born Lee didn't look all that much alike... just enough alike to fool casual observers." I love the "casual observers" bit. These are your STAR witnesses!!! Without them you have less than nothing! It's taken nearly five pages but at last we are finally introduced to "Russian speaking Harvey and American born Lee". This post started off about the chain of events regarding Kleins and slowly morphed into yet another episode from the Twilight Zone. At least the other sightings claimed he looked like Oswald yet Ryder didn't positively identify him as Oswald; maybe 'Lee' was busy fishing or buying trucks (as young reckless doppelgangers do!). Tack and weave....

Is that the best you got, Bernie? REALLY???? Russian-speaking Harvey and American-born Lee didn't look all that much alike... just enough alike to fool casual observers. That sort of loose resemblance is EASY to determine, even when the subjects are 10 years old... or less. Just look at the pictures at the top of the homepage on my website: HarveyandLee.net. In the very top image, American-born Lee Oswald is shown at far left (in a photo taken by his brother Robert); Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald is shown at far right in his famous mug shot. In between is CIA BS. Megathanks, as always, to Robert Prudhomme for his evidence pointing out that athletically built, American-born Lee Oswald was 5' 11" tall and weighed 150 lbs. We all know that Russian-speaking Harvey was a scrawny guy, at least 2 inches shorter. Let's talk MUCH MORE, Bernie, about Oswald lookalikes. Just to get the ball rolling, let's talk, in great detail, about Laura Kittrell! I'll go first and you can whine about it, as always .... Here's a VERY short write-up on Ms. Kittrell and her observations of the differences between the Two Oswalds. http://harveyandlee.net/Kittrell/Kittrell.htm Let's keep talking, Bernie. Don't give up!! "Is that the best you got, Bernie? REALLY????" It's all I need. Russian-speaking Harvey and American-born Lee didn't look all that much alike... just enough alike to fool casual observers. It's just that two posts up you made a MASSIVE deal about how much alike they were. Remember? Sure you do, it was said to back up your argument then, when you needed it to. Now, it looks a bit stupid, even childish, to admit that outright so we change tack. Don't you get bored with having to do all this cheating?