Bernie Laverick

Per your own posting ,you seem to travel to many TAVERNS (part of your self proclaimed, " I have a life"), I posit that there are two LAVERICKS. Pre pints and post pints, (there might be a third ... "oh last night tooooooo many pints") JUST ONE OF SAID SIGHTINGS ABOVE CORRECT AND DOUBLE OSWALDS IDEA IS CORRECT. IF H & L true, then open up the champagne !!!!!! THANKS gaal So in Gaal's world to "have a life" simply means drinking beer in a tavern. It's all a lot sadder than I thought. Wouldn't you just love to have one. eh? A life that is, not a beer. After all, beer is the Devil's brew. Get caught drinking that and you may incite His wrath and cause another global flooding. No worries, Gaal can be the new Noah, guiding the animals onto his ark two by two...two frogs, two giraffes, two beetles, two Oswalds... Tea total. Sorry. Try another smear. Would Jesus approve of your smear tactics?

Some people sighted LHO in 1963!!! There you then. You've proved H&L beyond doubt! Gaal is sneakily hoping that the reader will assume that these 'inconsistencies' were while one of them was in the USSR, as we were originally talking about. He's decided to craftily move the goalposts. There was a sighting of me earlier this morning. Maybe I am part of a doppelganger programme. Thick as mince...

Dawn the only reason I raise that point is to counter the accusation that we have to read the entire book before we can make a judgement. When JVB used to come on here she tried to sell her story. It was and is utter nonsense. You too may think it's nonsense. And you would have enough information from the author's own words to form your own judgement. You could ask her questions on points you find difficult to accept. If her story is true it will hold up against criticism and more and more people would be inspired to want to buy and read it. Or, as happened, the points raised will be so pertinent and so difficult to answer with any credibility that eventually her promotion of it will reveal major flaws when thoroughly questioned. Would it be fair of her to demand that everyone reads the FULL book before making a judgement, even after she had failed to convince no more than half dozen converts? I've asked this a few times now: what new information are we going to find in the book that hasn't been shown to us by H&L supporters on this forum or on your own H&L site? Ok Dawn, fair do's, it was a few years ago now that you mentioned you hadn't fully read H&L, and it's a bit childish of me to keep going on about it. My apologies.

LMAO! You're sounding more like Dave Reitzes did 20 years ago Tom. What is amazing here, in my eye at least, an example: David Lifton's much herald and planned book on LHO went to the scrap heap 15 or so years ago, because, in my estimation (and many will agree) John's H&L. Now Greg has a lot invested in his present LHO work (which is in progress). In fact, you might say, he has a lot to lose if he can't discredit H&L in its entirety. David needs no online/forum support here, in fact, I'm amazed he even bothers with you and those few peanut gallery responses you put forth... in my estimation ya need that H&L hogwash Tom, without it, Greg's book(s) fail. Such a strange way to promote a new work sales... whatever floats one's boat! I'll buy Greg's books (I did buy H&L at Jack White's insistence, it was an expensive yawn for me... I already believed LHO was a patsy, the rest was details. End of story for me! (update: rumor has it, there is a new LHO book in the works by a NYT best-selling author, how is that for timing?) Dear David, Harvey and Lee fail? How in the world could such a paranoiac theory fail when it's based on 1 ) two (hopefully) similar-looking boys' and their (already!) similar-looking mothers' being chosen by the bad guys to participate in a double doppelganger project which doesn't come to fruition until some ten years later, 2 ) one of the boys (both of whom are young men at this point of the "theory") was kinda (and, well, kinda not) hidden away in a safe house in the U.S. during the 2 1/2 years that the other one was living in Russia, and 3 ) both of their families were "in" on the project from the get-go, but have somehow managed to keep the secret for some sixty years so far (even though "Harvey's mother" -lol- complained early on that she thought her son might have been on some kind of intelligence mission in Russia)? How in the world could a paranoiac "theory" like that fail? I mean, with so many gullible people around who really really wanna believe the bad guys are not only really really bad, but also really really omniscient and really really really really really ... powerful? I mean, really. --Tommy Amazing how many times the trifecta has to explain to us what H&L is... when even the first 100 pages remains outside their reach... Your parroting BL is cute and all tommy as you and originality have yet to meet... but at some point along the way do your own brain cells offer anything but copy-paste-chuckle-Post? And speaking of syntax and grammar... "theories" do not fail... "theories" are proven or not... people presenting the "theory" may fail at convincing others... If you're going to play grammar nazi at least don't look so foolish in your own writing... or at least read what you copy before you past it What you posted is gibberish tommy... I already posted what the THEORY was and is... that you can't accept it is your own problem. Guessing what something says or represents without bothering to honestly investigate it screams hypocrisy. But you already knew that. You sound like Bugliosi arguing the WCR conclusions as fact... damn be what it actually shows tommy G has the answers since he's done the work to arrive at it.. the double edge of this sword is so completely lost to you... if you prefer we paraphrase anything you post and then tell you what YOU THINK, fine. but I doubt that would fly for a second yet that's all the trifecta seems to ever do... maybe stop telling us what WE KNOW and post what it is YOU KNOW and how - we realize this means you must take responsibility for yourself but hey... by this time in your life it's time already.. right tg? (a bit of an inferiority complex there buddy... "he didn't capitalize my name, what an ogre... how will I make it thru the day now?" Grown up little man. Due respect to Steve and Jim... other than when they post the actual text, they are proceeding from their understanding of the work and like the WCR everyone has their individual take - the core of the theory and evidence remains the same. So again tg... thanks for the recap. you can go back to sleep now TRIFECTA in English: nounNorth American & Australian /NZ 1A bet in which the person betting forecasts the first three finishers in a race in the correct order. Example sentences Too often, exactas, trifectas, and superfectas are influenced by jockeys who can't win the race and decide to stop riding in the final few strides. Vertical and horizontal wagers such as trifectas, superfectas, pick threes, and pick fours should be in $1 pay-offs. Professionals don't completely eschew the standard win and place bet, but their focus is overwhelmingly on the exotic bets, especially trifectas. 1.1 [in singular] A run of three wins or grand events: he will attempt a trifecta of the long jump, triple jump, and 110-meter high hurdles Yep, I do the long jump, Tommy does the triple and Greg crashes all over the 110 meter hurdles. Meanwhile, back on planet earth... Trifecta??? This is what happens when unimaginative people try and use a thesaurus. It kind of says what your trying to say, I can almost see where you're coming from, but, just like H&L, scratch the surface, do a bit of research, and it's just gibberish that has zilch relevance. The word you are seeking, just for future reference, is... triumvirate A triumvirate (from Latin, triumvirātus, from trēs three + vir man) is a political regime dominated by three powerful individuals, each a triumvir (pl. triumvirs or triumviri). The arrangement can be formal or informal, and though the three are usually equal on paper, in reality this is rarely the case. Too right, I'm far more handsome then those two! PS...I prefer trifecta to "Minions". David is mellowing with age...

C'mon Laverik get with the game here. There is no onus on anyone to prove anything, that includes you! You are way out of line demanding anything from anyone.. If you don't like certain published material, simply do your own book concerning the subject matter... in other words, put something on the table other than noise... You're suspiciously sounding like a CT preparing for lone nut conversion.... I've seen this before, in fact, many times before.... Same old same old.... and the nutter beat goes on! Without the doubt the most insufferable poster on this forum. I thought you'd had a conversion when you recently apologised to Greg for, well... for being you David. You know making wild accusatory chirping posts but avoiding at all costs being involved in the discussion. Is this all you do now? It's boring, really boring..... At least Gaal brings some exotic colour to the proceedings. And he thinks he knows what he thinks he is defending. In his own way, bless him, he's even accumulated some knowledge. David is far more impressive but has accumulated way too much knowledge on all this. Jim seems to have just the right balance of H&L knowledge and exotic oddball conclusions. So what do you add? Where do you stand on H&L? What do you think happened? Here's your big moment son. Hope you do better than you used to do with Lamson. I've said this to you before David, when a nonentity like Lamson can tan your backside every day you really should just bow out quietly.

Show us the PLOT you think was going on, why you think this and anything to support that conclusion... But this is a thread about the H&L theory, the onus is on you to prove it. As a member of the forum I am simply exercising my right to question a theory and a method used by a section of the research community I don't agree with. Like you do on other people's work. No one said they "looked nothing like" each other... The witness Jim implored us all to read, presumably because it strengthens the theory that 'Lee' was in the USA whilst 'Harvey' was in Russia, also said that they were "very very similar". Personally I think she is referring to the same person. But you HAVE to believe her because she is one of the witnesses you rely on for the story to fit. So you'll accept it was definitely 'Lee' that she saw. She was right about that. But you discard her observation that they were "very very similar" because that is now inconvenient. Can you see why people get irritated with you David?

What makes Bernie here think they looked alike enough that people who knew one or the other couldn't tell them apart as opposed to witnesses who got glimpses of a person they had never seen before... The inset is from 18 months earlier... by the zoo photo this boy is suppoed to be at least 64" and 115lbs (NYC records from May & Sept 1953). If you think these boys look that much alike.. ok. Your're definitely in the minority on that one. If they looked so much alike BL, how does Pic get Lee from Harvey in every single case? Mr. JENNER - And you recognize that as your brother? Mr. PIC - Because they say so, sir. Mr. JENNER - Please, I don't want you to say-- Mr. PIC - No; I couldn't recognize that. Mr. JENNER - Because this magazine says that it is. Mr. PIC - No, sir; I couldn't recognize him from that picture. Mr. JENNER - You don't recognize anybody else in the picture after studying it that appears to be your brother? When I say your brother now, I am talking about Lee. Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - The next one is prominent; in front is a picture of a young boy. There is a partially shown girl and apparently another boy with a striped shirt in the background. Do you recognize that picture? Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - Then there is one immediately to the right of that, a young man in the foreground sitting on the floor, with his knees, legs crossed, and his arms also crossed. There are some other people apparently in the background. Mr. PIC - I recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - Does anything about the picture enable you to identify as to where that was taken? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - Then to the right there is a picture of two young men, the upper portion of the one young man at the bottom and then apparently a young man standing up in back of that person. Do you recognize either of those young people? Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 284 do you recognize anybody in that picture that appears to be Lee Oswald? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - Directing your attention to Exhibit, Commission Exhibit No. 289, do you recognize any of the servicemen shown in that picture as your brother Lee? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I do not recognize them. Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 291, at the bottom of the page, there is a picture of a young man handing out a leaflet, and another man to the left of him who is reaching out for it. Do you recognize the young man handing out the leaflet? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I would be unable to recognize him. Mrs. MURRET - Well, he said he stopped at Myrtle's house and went up to the door, and she came to the door but she didn't recognize him, she didn't recognize Lee. Mr. JENNER - He was telling you this; is that right? Mrs. MURRET - Yes; he told me how he did that, and he said he asked Myrtle did she have an apartment, that he was looking for an apartment for his wife and baby who were coming from Texas, and so Myrtle said, "Well, I'm sorry, but I only have an apartment on the second floor, and I don't think that would be good, you know, for your wife." Lee said to her, "Do you know who I am?" and she said, "No." And he said, "I am Lee Oswald." She said, "Well, don't tell me! Lee, I would never have recognized you." The men who knew LEE in the USMC stated that the man they knew was 30 lbs heavier and a few inches taller than the man Ruby killed... So why does every one of your witnesses mistake 'Lee' for 'Harvey'? Why did YOUR witness Kittrell say they were "very very similar"? But then the only explanation for that is she saw the same person because you say they didn't look that similar. Who is right? You or the witnesses you rely on to prop this ridiculous charade up? Anyway, I asked if this plot would have worked if the two boys had grown up to look vastly different. Would the deception have worked just as well? Or, in the scheme of things, would it be have been wonderfully fortuitous if they grew up looking "very very similar". They did. How lucky is that? I know you'd rather discuss doctored photos and school records. You can go down thousands of rabbit holes when we go there. This however is your Kryptonite. This is a piece of absurdity you cannot wriggle out of. Jim? Can you hear me? Do YOU think the H&L plot would have worked just as well had they turned out looking completely different? But who ever heard of a doppelganger that looked nothing like the person they were impersonating? You refuse to admit that 'they' looked "very very similar" because you know that that alone kills the story stone dead.

Jon. I mentioned the tape recording because you had asked, "Did he grasp English well, or not?". To which I might now reply, "Hell, no he didn't grasp English well. He had lived in the Bronx and in Texas!" LOL Apparently you think "Harvey" / "Marina's husband" spoke and wrote English quite well, but Russian not so well at all, e.g. the letter which your scholarly, Russian-speaking daughter analysed and determined was written by someone who wasn't very good at Russian. What do you think of Marina's claiming that when she first met Oswald, he spoke Russian so well that she thought he was from the Baltics area? And how about "Lee," the guy from Fort Worth who looked kinda like "Harvey" and who was hidden in safe houses the 2 1/5 years that "Harvey" was in the U.S.S.R.? Did he have a good grasp of the English language? How was his Russian? LOL And how about "Lee," the guy from Fort Worth who looked kinda like "Harvey" and who was hidden in safe houses the 2 1/5 years that "Harvey" was in the U.S.S.R.? Except when he was let out to go and buy trucks in his own name... Or when he was allowed out to visit the TEC and be interviewed by the same woman, Kittrell, who had just recently interviewed 'Harvey'. (It may have been the other way round because she said they were "very very similar") Or when he breezily made his presence in front of Miss Hise, one of Ruby's employees, answering to the name "Ossie"... I guess safe houses just weren't as safe as they should have been Tommy...

Gaal, this is just getting depressing. Dorothy Marcum was NOT dating Ruby. She said so herself. Why the reliance on hearsay? Her aunt however did work for Ruby. Her name was Billie Irene Hadley Billy's husband worked for Ruby at the Vegas Club. His name was HARVEY LEE HADLEY!!!! This is the person who Dorothy was claiming worked for Ruby. And another one bites the dust... I'm not going through your list, though. Like I said -- too depressing because I know it will be shooting fish in a barrel. Actually I just realized! You're NOT relying on hearsay (which is all it ever was) You, Hargroves and/or Armstrong have put that hearsay into Dorothy's mouth! The sheer dishonesty is breathtaking. It is the second example I've found in the last few days where one of you has put hearsay into the mouth of the alleged witness. You all should be tarred and feathered and run out of Tombstone! John Armstrong http://harveyandlee.net/Ruby/Ruby.html>> Link info below "Ruby was interviewing Francis Irene Hise for a job as a waitress when a young man entered the Carousel Club and Ruby said "Hi, Ozzie" to the young man. After she was hired Miss Hise served drinks to "Ozzie," whom she recognized after the assassination as LHO." ================================ HELLO CRAFEE (a possible playful Ruby speech) WHY NOT Hi ,CRAFEE ??? . ,gaal Here we go again see? She recognised him ('Lee') as the man who was shot by Ruby ('Harvey'). Must have looked very similar don't you think? And was Miss Hise in on the whole H&L plot? Or was she just needlessly exposed to it so she could spill the beans at a later date? Like both meeting Kitrell (who said they looked "very very similar") around the same time as each other. Why would they do that? Like the Bolton Ford 'incident', we have an Oswald look-alikey buying trucks under his own name while the person he is clandestinely impersonating is in Russia. Who is planning this H&L programme? Cheech and Chong? And was it an advantage or a disadvantage that the two boys grew up to look "very very similar" (your witness!) by the time the defection plan could be put into operation? In other words...Would Harvey and Lee have worked had they looked completely different? If your answer is no...You've lost!

Journalist writes play outlining Chicago Outfit’s involvement in JFK’s assassination August 24, 2015 Morning Shift WBEZ 91.5 http://www.wbez.org/...involvement-jfk Go on Gaal, write them a letter and tell them how immoral they are!

Did you read the rambling accusatory letter she wrote to Robert Kennedy? She's bonkers and you know it! BONKERS ..bonkers is anyone making a buck over the family pain of the Oswald family. THAT PERSON IS IMORAL. How does that go ??? CASE CLOSED. see https://bernielaverick.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/bernie-laverick-2/ gaal +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/lee-harveys-legacy/ link info below " Rachel was quiet for a moment. "I think Lee was this twenty-four-year-old guy, this youngster, who got himself in over his head. Lee was intelligent, but he was no genius. I don’t know who else was involved, but clearly it was too big of a deal for one twenty-four-year-old kid to do by himself. For example, right before the shooting someone asked my mother to take a picture of Lee holding a rifle, and then right after the shooting, the picture is confiscated, and everyone says, ‘Look, there’s the gun, there’s the guy who did it, case closed.’ And apparently there were police recordings of someone saying Jack Ruby was planning to kill Lee, and sure enough, the next day Jack Ruby makes his way through all the police and kills Lee live on national TV. I mean, think about it. There are just too many loose ends for it all to be dumped on my father. It was just too big of a deal. Until I was twenty-three, I didn’t even know there were alternative theories. I’ve only read a couple of books about it. I’m sorry for my father’s pain, but basically I just want it to be over, one way or another, especially by the time I have kids. - " See more at: http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/lee-harveys-legacy/#sthash.XXMSW8xV.dpuf Ah, I get it, it's because I made a joke about David trying to push buttons with his constant references to my family. I said he'd got the wrong button and that he should taunt me about my criminal convictions instead. It will have been obvious to everyone else that I have no criminal convictions, it was a joke. Duh!! But that's where little tin foil bible boy thought he'd do some Google research and find the dirt. Yet another example of a paranoid CT looking for intrigue and duplicity around every corner But all he could find was that I was trying to write a musical about the life of Marina Oswald. He thinks that's "immoral". The American Taliban are gaining strength!

Joseph, You say we (Greg, Bernie, and I) encourage ourselves and others to "Have Faith and Believe" in our arguments against Harvey and Lee??? Sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. After all, you're the one with the quasi religion, the cult. You need to learn some more appropriate insults, ones that won't come right back at you, like a boomerang. --Tommy Tommy, he is simply and inappropriately trying to get rid of the labels he so richly deserves by pinning them on us. His total lack of imagination and propensity for original thought is betrayed by this gambit, as well as by the fact that he is merely a water carrier for someone else's (very muddy) water. Total lack of imagination Yes, that's what binds them all together isn't it? The full on inability to think for themselves and have their OWN thoughts. Whether that's the word of some Bronze age Bedouin tribesmen writing about plagues of frogs or some slick millionaire with an even crazier story than that, they have no choice but to attach themselves to it. I ask you this, without the bible or H&L what is the point of these people? It's the only thing they've got to live for. Chronically gullible and lacking even a slither of original thought (but evangelical with it!), they are the perfect candidates to fall for all this disinformation. Amen

You can tell you are there because it is the premium place to learn about any NEW developments in this conundrum. You can tell you are there because it isn't infested with little lonely middle aged men who are pumped up by their own sense of arrogant self importance. And whilst anyone is welcome to post at ROKC, beware, because if you import your haughty arrogance or try to derail, or lie, or spread malicious rumour, or smear tactics...you will be called out on it! I know, for God fearing folk, their cussing is abominable. They use swear words you know. Disgusting. Cussing in front of the Lord like that. And so on and so on...blah blah blah... Never mind the ground-breaking original research that is throwing up all manner of leads, never mind that eh? Let's talk about the cussing. By the way David, I've just got that joke about the broken clock. That's so funny! You've posted it about 20 times in this topic alone and in all that time I just didn't get it. You see, what he means is that even if a clock isn't working, or has stopped, then at some point every twelve hours it will be in the right place. Think about it. So, simply multiply that by two (because there are 24 hours in one day, right?) and that's why he made that stunningly hilarious piece of observation comedy. All his own work apparently. Or maybe it was that one of JA's. Yeah, it'll be what he was ordered to joke! Bernie. He's quite the "broken record" isn't he? And his mind? Well, golly, his mind might be compared to a over-wound Coo-coo Clock. --Tommy Hey Tommy I like the fact that they admonish us for never reading the book when they've dumped the entire text of H&L five times on this topic alone. Every time I do go to one of Gaal's links one of three things happen, 1. It isn't there. 2. It is completely irrelevant or 3. It says something completely different to what he had stated. And presumably he has read it. Whereas Dawn Meredith once did a presentation for COPA on H&L and she hadn't! Don't they think we've been subjected to enough exposure to what they are trying to prove? What is the further devastating proof not revealed by them on this forum that still remains to be learned about in the book? Nothing. It's just a cheap way of wriggling out of questions they can't answer. Not only are these the types of people oily and sneaky enough to sell Big Ben, they are also gullible enough to buy it. That is an explosive combination.

You can tell you are there because it is the premium place to learn about any NEW developments in this conundrum. You can tell you are there because it isn't infested with little lonely middle aged men who are pumped up by their own sense of arrogant self importance. And whilst anyone is welcome to post at ROKC, beware, because if you import your haughty arrogance or try to derail, or lie, or spread malicious rumour, or smear tactics...you will be called out on it! I know, for God fearing folk, their cussing is abominable. They use swear words you know. Disgusting. Cussing in front of the Lord like that. And so on and so on...blah blah blah... Never mind the ground-breaking original research that is throwing up all manner of leads, never mind that eh? Let's talk about the cussing. By the way David, I've just got that joke about the broken clock. That's so funny! You've posted it about 20 times in this topic alone and in all that time I just didn't get it. You see, what he means is that even if a clock isn't working, or has stopped, then at some point every twelve hours it will be in the right place. Think about it. So, simply multiply that by two (because there are 24 hours in one day, right?) and that's why he made that stunningly hilarious piece of observation comedy. All his own work apparently. Or maybe it was that one of JA's. Yeah, it'll be what he was ordered to joke!

Smear? Apologize? By your own admission: "...What because I said I was writing a play about the assassination?" DUH, a non-profit playwright? That's the ticket... Just a *spec* only project, eh? Not much experience or success in the craft yet, eh Bern? Yes that's right clever twat it was for an amateur production!! Like the three other plays I've had done in this town. They cost money to put on, idiot! And correct again I have had NO success because I do it for the love of doing it. It's amateur stuff. You know...FUN? Challenge? Social life? Making new friends? Creative outlet. What am I thinking, like any of you mindless morons actually have a life! So, the H&L position is this. If you ever write a song a poem or a play about Marina Oswald you are morally bankrupt. Yet it's perfectly ok to tell blatant lies about her husband and embroil her whole family in what is nothing more than a vicious fantasy tearing their family apart?

Bernie, you should know by now, once they utter it, it becomes true. Utter scumbag! What a low-life lying piece of xxxx! What is about people who 'follow the lord' that they always turn out to be psychos, serial killers, paedophiles or just plain evil and nasty? They can't answer these points so it's personal abuse time. Ask them a question they can't answer and they scurry to google to try and find anything they can to divert from their own inane babbling stupidity. The idea that Oswald acted alone is just too ridiculous to entertain and those protecting this cover up know it. They needed something a bit more sexy, and bit more anti NWO, in order to send inquisitive minds on a wild goose chase. Jim and David are the geese. Gaal is their droppings! Can someone please clear him away?

I hope Gaal has the decency to apologise for the smear he is trying to fool members with. He accused me of making a buck of the Oswald family's pain. What evidence does he have for this smear?

Did you read the rambling accusatory letter she wrote to Robert Kennedy? She's bonkers and you know it! BONKERS ..bonkers is anyone making a buck over the family pain of the Oswald family. THAT PERSON IS IMORAL. How does that go ??? CASE CLOSED. see https://bernielaverick.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/bernie-laverick-2/ gaal +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/lee-harveys-legacy/ link info below " Rachel was quiet for a moment. "I think Lee was this twenty-four-year-old guy, this youngster, who got himself in over his head. Lee was intelligent, but he was no genius. I don’t know who else was involved, but clearly it was too big of a deal for one twenty-four-year-old kid to do by himself. For example, right before the shooting someone asked my mother to take a picture of Lee holding a rifle, and then right after the shooting, the picture is confiscated, and everyone says, ‘Look, there’s the gun, there’s the guy who did it, case closed.’ And apparently there were police recordings of someone saying Jack Ruby was planning to kill Lee, and sure enough, the next day Jack Ruby makes his way through all the police and kills Lee live on national TV. I mean, think about it. There are just too many loose ends for it all to be dumped on my father. It was just too big of a deal. Until I was twenty-three, I didn’t even know there were alternative theories. I’ve only read a couple of books about it. I’m sorry for my father’s pain, but basically I just want it to be over, one way or another, especially by the time I have kids. - " See more at: http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/lee-harveys-legacy/#sthash.XXMSW8xV.dpuf You are by far the strangest little man I have ever known. Please explain how I am making a buck off "the family pain of the Oswald family". What because I said I was writing a play about the assassination? In your tiny little God-fearing world no doubt writing plays or songs is seen as being ungodly. I notice you'd rather concentrate on some personal research to see what I do in my spare time rather than address the above issues. I think it is because you simply don't have enough intelligence. is that all you can throw at me? On my word press pageI said I wanted to write a play about JFK? That's it? Bet that was a bit disappointing. I'd return the favour and do some research on you but tin foil hat wearers don't leave the house and are incapable of creative thought. Shows you don't have an answer to all the recent questions I've raised anyway. Well done, Gaal's put his foot in it again!

Did you read the rambling accusatory letter she wrote to Robert Kennedy? She's bonkers and you know it!

Who says I don't care less? You? Clearly I do... So now it's your turn. Hope you do a bit better than Mork and Mindy. They're getting a bit of a whooping aren't they David? So now David Josephs is going to answer why Oswald's handlers would allow the doppelganger to visit the same office, TEC, to have an interview with the same person, Kittrell, just weeks before the assassination. If they were that un-secretive about all of this then there should be 100's of examples where 'Lee' is clearly in the USA whilst 'Harvey' is in the USSR. But you have nothing. Noto thing! And all of these witnesses are SURE that the person shot by Ruby is the person they are talking about. In other words, they were identical in looks. Oops. PS David, the constant reference to my family is not the button you need to be pushing. To start a flame war you should make references to my criminal convictions. I'm very secretive and sensitive about that! That's the button right there. Ok?

You need to pay attention, Bernie. Obviously, I'm going to have to post A LOT more stuff from Harvey and Lee. As I've already shown, Richard Garrett met Harvey Oswald in junior high school and Lee Oswald in high school and was quoted by Life magazine telling the differences between the two. Laura Kittrell at the Texas Employment Commission also met both Oswalds and described the differences in great (and accurate) detail: from Harvey and Lee, p. 728: Laura said, "Although the man I remember as (Harvey) Oswald and the man I remember as the Teamster (Lee Oswald) were much alike in size, shape, and outline, generally, there was a marked difference between them in bearing and manner. The man I remember as (Harvey) Oswald was a trim, energetic, compact, well-knit person who sat on the edge of a chair, but the man I remember as the teamster was a trifling, shiftless, good-for-nothing lout who sprawled oafishly over his chair and whose move- ments seemed curiously uncoordinated, like those of a person who had been drinking, and yet I don't think he had been drinking."81 OCT,63-13 Laura also recalled, "He (the "Teamster") was slouchy and he was kind of un- kempt, not dirty, but messy and very unmilitary looking. That was one thing about Mr. (Harvey) Oswald, he always looked very military, neat as a pin, and this fellow wasn't. And he had this peculiar way of laughing and talking so that people all over the room could hear him, and Mr. (Harvey) Oswald wasn't like that at all." Kittrell said that al- though she suspected the fellow (the "Teamster") might not have been (Harvey) Oswald at the time, she wasn't sure and she didn't want to call him a xxxx and create a scene without being sure.82 A number of other witnesses noted that the "Oswald" they saw on television after the assassination was not the Oswald they originally encountered. I'll make a list some time. From H&L..."She interviewed the two Oswalds in 1963 in Dallas. She remembered they looked remarkably similar." "The two Oswalds were very, very similar" FBI report (boooh!!!) of interview with Kittrell: "Miss Kittrell also said she could not be certain the man was in fact Lee Harvey Oswald; she said her recollection of the person is that he seemed to fit the description later published concerning the real Oswald." http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/FBI%20Records%20Files/105-82555/105-82555%20Section%20227/227e.pdf This is the Kittrell that went on to write a scrawling letter to Robert Kennedy dripping with paranoia about ‘them’ being out to get her. The woman was clearly disturbed and only too willing to embroil herself in an intrigue pitting herself against dark government forces. Read the letter, she’s completely round the hat rack! (also on above link) And are we saying that by the time Kittrell had got back from lunch on the 22nd Nov the FBI had already swept her office of all traces of Oswald’s records? Really? That quick? But why did the handlers allow this to happen in the first place? How stupid are they to let both subjects expose themselves at the most critical point of the whole elaborate plot. Why would they do that? What possible advantage is there having both of them appear at the same office to be interviewed by the same person only weeks apart? This story sounds great, exotic almost, but when you scratch the surface, on every issue, it's nothing more than a bag of smoke.

All these little boy tantrums are because he was unable to address ridiculous issue of them looking identical. Will you address that Jim?? You've been asked enough now. Certainly, Bernie. They looked similar enough to fool some casual observers, but they were hardly identical. You guys should all contact Social Security to get the latest excuse for this stuff. Casual observers? This is a comedy sketch surely. The "casual observers" you refer to are your star witnesses!! They are the ones who are making this work for you!! Not one of them seemingly commented an the slight differences to the person they were describing and the person flashed across the entire media? Not one. Did any of the witnesses who saw 'Lee' in this time frame subsequently remark on the slight facial difference between the person they witnessed and the person shot by Ruby. Not even a lingering doubt that they were two different people? Did Noto, or any of the other witnesses who say they saw 'Lee' ever subsequently say of the sighting, "Funny thing is, he said his name was Oswald but there's something about the guy they're showing on TV that doesn't quite ring true. He wasn't the man I witnessed." They ALL believed the person they were speaking to was the historic Oswald. The doppelganger fooled EVERYONE who saw him That's as near as identical as you can get! And that means your entire theory is utter nonsense because the chances are too ridiculous to even consider. Gaal will now throw up some link to Victorian facial reconstruction like he did the last time we nailed you on this. He also showed a link about two guys who weren't related but looked identical, it was quite creepy I admit. But that means Gaal is convinced that the two Oswalds DID look identical, he was trying to show how that could be possible. But you are now saying they weren't. Well only to "casual observers" at least, that is, the very people on who's observations sits the entire H&L fantasy. You should all get together and write a sitcom, I don't know, something like Mork and Mindy...

All these little boy tantrums are because he was unable to address ridiculous issue of them looking identical. Will you address that Jim?? You've been asked enough now.

Sewell is a worthless witness. He never came forward at the time and what he said is completely at odds with the actual salesman (Oscar Deslatte) involved AND the completed bid form. Deslatte stated that only the surname Oswald was used - and that was all that was on the paperwork. Using Sewell and ignoring Deslatte is yet another example of Armstrong's cherry-picking. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10477&search=%22oscar_deslatte%22#relPageId=681&tab=page What a laugh riot! Mr. Parker, mustering all the authority he can, declares what John did and didn't do but--by his own admission--Parker has not even read Harvey and Lee and therefore has NO IDEA what Armstrong did or didn't write. Had he bothered to read the book he spends a major portion of his life trying to debunk, he would have found the following short write-up, which hardly ignores Deslatte: From Harvey and Lee, pp. 325-326: January 20--Lee Oswald in New Orleans On January 20, while Harvey Oswald was in Minsk, two men visited the Bolton Ford dealership at 1483 North Claiborne in New Orleans. They spoke with Assistant Manager Oscar Deslatte and said they were interested in purchasing 10 Ford Econoline Trucks. As one of the men discussed the purchase with Deslatte the other man, who identified himself as Joseph Moore, made a list of the equipment they desired on the trucks. Deslatte went to his boss, truck manager Fred Sewell, and told him about the two men who wanted to purchase trucks and said they represented the "Free Democrats of Cuba or some such organization." Sewell told Deslatte to give the men a bid of$75 over their cost for the trucks. Deslatte and Sewell returned to Deslatte's desk and wrote out a bid form to Joseph Moore. As Deslatte was filling out the bid form, Joseph Moore and the other man began talking to both Deslatte and Sewell.42 When Moore saw that Deslatte had written his name on the bid form he asked that the name be changed to "Friends of Democratic Cuba." Moore's friend looked· at the form and said, "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." 61-04 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. He recalled that Oswald was clean but "wasn't well dressed and he wasn't shabby." Sewell described the second man, who identified himself as Joseph Moore as, "Kind of heavy-set ..... not overly, but well built ..... he was curly haired ..... he had a scar over his left eye ..... olive complexioned and seemed to be educated ..... he had a Cuban accent and looked like a Cuban." Deslatte gave the original bid form to "Lee Oswald" and kept a copy for his files, which he gave to the FBI following the assassination.61-05 The purchaser was listed as the "Friends of Democratic Cuba," 402 St. Charles Street, New Orleans, LA., phone number JA-50763.43 After talking with Deslate for over an hour the two men took the original bid form and left. NOTE: The Friends of Democratic Cuba was incorporated on January 9, 1961 in Louisiana. The address of 40 2 St. Charles Street was listed as vacant in the 1960, 1961 and 1962 New Orleans City directories. Oscar Deslatte, like Valentine Ashworth, Mrs. Davis, Marinez Malo, Marita Lorenz, and many others, was ignored by FBI because his testimony, and the bid form, placed Lee Oswald in the United States while the Warren Commission said Oswald was in Russia. Mr. Parker will now drone on endlessly declaring total victory again and again and again.... And did either Deslatte or Sewell say that this person looked exactly like the historic Oswald? But that was 'Harvey', and they witnessed 'Lee', who obviously must have been identical to the person plastered over the media and then shot by Ruby? So they were identical after all. Planned as a paper exercise to meld two non related young boys' identities with a view to possible future espionage possibilities, they pass through adolescence and emerge with identical facial features! One goes to Russia whilst the other hides out in the USA. None of his friends wonder why he is out fishing when he is supposed to be in Russia. Or why he is buying trucks and using his 'real name' when he is part of a plot that necessitates that he keeps a very low profile. Your tea-boy, Gaal, said he was locked away in a safe-house. Now he says he went fishing a lot. The truth is, that if there really was a Lee Oswald living in NO or Dallas at that time you haven't yet located him. You have absolutely nothing! No address. No citation. Nothing. All you know of him is that he went fishing a lot and, when allowed out of the house, he'd do that rebellious teenage doppelganger thing and deliberately blow his cover by buying trucks in his own name. You can't possibly believe any of this nonsense Jim! Surely! Well put, Bernie. Well put, indeed! But Warning: Expect another frothing-at-the-mouth "smooth movement" data dump from at least one of the Three Amigos. --Tommy Yep, I reckon it's teeth and tonsil time. They haven't done that for a few weeks. It's not unreasonable given their premise that we ask for proof that the entity called Lee was definitely living in the USA whilst Harvey was in Russia. They have none. And it's painfully obvious to see.

Sewell is a worthless witness. He never came forward at the time and what he said is completely at odds with the actual salesman (Oscar Deslatte) involved AND the completed bid form. Deslatte stated that only the surname Oswald was used - and that was all that was on the paperwork. Using Sewell and ignoring Deslatte is yet another example of Armstrong's cherry-picking. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10477&search=%22oscar_deslatte%22#relPageId=681&tab=page What a laugh riot! Mr. Parker, mustering all the authority he can, declares what John did and didn't do but--by his own admission--Parker has not even read Harvey and Lee and therefore has NO IDEA what Armstrong did or didn't write. Had he bothered to read the book he spends a major portion of his life trying to debunk, he would have found the following short write-up, which hardly ignores Deslatte: From Harvey and Lee, pp. 325-326: January 20--Lee Oswald in New Orleans On January 20, while Harvey Oswald was in Minsk, two men visited the Bolton Ford dealership at 1483 North Claiborne in New Orleans. They spoke with Assistant Manager Oscar Deslatte and said they were interested in purchasing 10 Ford Econoline Trucks. As one of the men discussed the purchase with Deslatte the other man, who identified himself as Joseph Moore, made a list of the equipment they desired on the trucks. Deslatte went to his boss, truck manager Fred Sewell, and told him about the two men who wanted to purchase trucks and said they represented the "Free Democrats of Cuba or some such organization." Sewell told Deslatte to give the men a bid of$75 over their cost for the trucks. Deslatte and Sewell returned to Deslatte's desk and wrote out a bid form to Joseph Moore. As Deslatte was filling out the bid form, Joseph Moore and the other man began talking to both Deslatte and Sewell.42 When Moore saw that Deslatte had written his name on the bid form he asked that the name be changed to "Friends of Democratic Cuba." Moore's friend looked· at the form and said, "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." 61-04 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. He recalled that Oswald was clean but "wasn't well dressed and he wasn't shabby." Sewell described the second man, who identified himself as Joseph Moore as, "Kind of heavy-set ..... not overly, but well built ..... he was curly haired ..... he had a scar over his left eye ..... olive complexioned and seemed to be educated ..... he had a Cuban accent and looked like a Cuban." Deslatte gave the original bid form to "Lee Oswald" and kept a copy for his files, which he gave to the FBI following the assassination.61-05 The purchaser was listed as the "Friends of Democratic Cuba," 402 St. Charles Street, New Orleans, LA., phone number JA-50763.43 After talking with Deslate for over an hour the two men took the original bid form and left. NOTE: The Friends of Democratic Cuba was incorporated on January 9, 1961 in Louisiana. The address of 40 2 St. Charles Street was listed as vacant in the 1960, 1961 and 1962 New Orleans City directories. Oscar Deslatte, like Valentine Ashworth, Mrs. Davis, Marinez Malo, Marita Lorenz, and many others, was ignored by FBI because his testimony, and the bid form, placed Lee Oswald in the United States while the Warren Commission said Oswald was in Russia. Mr. Parker will now drone on endlessly declaring total victory again and again and again.... And did either Deslatte or Sewell say that this person looked exactly like the historic Oswald? But that was 'Harvey', and they witnessed 'Lee', who obviously must have been identical to the person plastered over the media and then shot by Ruby? So they were identical after all. Planned as a paper exercise to meld two non related young boys' identities with a view to possible future espionage possibilities, they pass through adolescence and emerge with identical facial features! One goes to Russia whilst the other hides out in the USA. None of his friends wonder why he is out fishing when he is supposed to be in Russia. Or why he is buying trucks and using his 'real name' when he is part of a plot that necessitates that he keeps a very low profile. Your tea-boy, Gaal, said he was locked away in a safe-house. Now he says he went fishing a lot. The truth is, that if there really was a Lee Oswald living in NO or Dallas at that time you haven't yet located him. You have absolutely nothing! No address. No citation. Nothing. All you know of him is that he went fishing a lot and, when allowed out of the house, he'd do that rebellious teenage doppelganger thing and deliberately blow his cover by buying trucks in his own name. You can't possibly believe any of this nonsense Jim! Surely!