Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

Mon 23 Oct 2017, 4:32 am

Agent Laverick wrote:Where do I start? So you agree that Armstrong didn't leave much to be discovered. Interesting. And convenient. But tell me, how does a person who admits he has only "scratched the surface" of Armstrong's work KNOW that he hasn't left much to be discovered? Blind faith? The realisation that since Armstrong you have all found a big fat zero to add to it? Do you know FOR DEFINITE that there isn't an old photo kicking about showing 'Lee's' tooth missing? Not just the one, but others too? Find it/them and we're going to look pretty stupid aren't we? But none of you have even bothered looking. If I'm wrong however, please reveal the results of such a search.
This isn't so much aimed at you Sandy, I respect what you say about being an amateur researcher and it's not you personally I'm firing these questions at. But you are defending this theory and I'm asking you what others may have done to further corroborate H&L. I'm presuming that someone who shows as much interest in this topic as you would want to know if further research has added meat from where Armstrong left it. You would be interested in such developments, right?
For example, it would be brilliant for H&L if an school friend of 'Lee' came across this forum and contacted Jim with anything he knew about him wouldn't it? He may even have a photo of 'Lee' and if he too confirmed the missing tooth, your story would gain traction, it would gain credibility, and it would increase your confidence to go and look for more corroborative evidence.

Hadn't thought about this before but Bernie is bang on.

The education forum is often sent messages or has people joining because they are related to, or knew someone who has been subject of recent scrutiny and they either want to correct misunderstandings, or add whatever else they can.

The same happens here to a lesser extent, as regulars would know.

So why has this not happened for the H & L Cult? Jim has been publishing this stuff since at least 1999 - well before the ed forum or this one existed.

As for why none of them have taken up the challenge of extending on Armstrong's work, I would suggest to Agent Laverick that it comes down to none of them having the time or finances to go on witness recruitment drives, and none having the imagination or resources to go through the JFK holdings looking for even more anomalies into which they can insert one of the two doppelgangers. It is the same methodology used by JVB to insert herself.

Citizen Hargrove wrote:John continues to do original research, the latest of which can be seen in a write-up he completed in the last year or so and just completely reorganized last week. Read it here:

Funny, when I was in discussion with the late Jack White, he attempted to contact Armstrong for comment or clarification on points being raised. The reply? I was told very quickly that Armstrong had retired from all of this and could not be bothered wasting his time on internet chat forum squabbles and that all of my questions were answered in The Book.

I think he took it back up when I was booted from the ed forum. Surprised

Mon 23 Oct 2017, 4:52 am

The "it has already been laid out" mentality favored by the H&L crowd reminds me of the same reaction most people - the media especially - took to the WC reports. They said, "The WC has already covered ALL the bases so no one needs to look further. This is echoed by those in lock-step with Armstrong and his H&L hypothesis.

Just this morning my wife was asking about how can so many theories come out of the JFK investigation and the answer I gave her would seem to fit the H&L crowd as well as what the WC did:

Form an hypothesis and then sift through the evidence and witnesses to find those supporting the theory. And then, you only call for witnesses those who support one or another part of your theory. We know by reading the WC volumes that this is exactly what they did. Many witnesses were never called and any evidence contrary to the "accepted theory" was ignored. Even witnesses that supported the theory in some regard, when their testimony went off track onto another area that did not support the theory, they were cut off, re-routed, gone off record to get them "back on task", or simply dismissed.

Armstrong, using the WC as a guide, knows exactly how to cull and cherrypick for the necessary "facts".

You wonder why the H&L crowd does not attempt to dig deeper or try and find corroborating evidence on their own?

That's simple!

Anyone who goes that route will very quickly realize that beyond the boxes and mirrors utilized by Armstrong, there is absolutely NOTHING that supports his theory. To become an H&L "researcher" is what creates the H&L deniers.

It really is that simple.

Bernie Laverick is a freakin' genius!

Wed 25 Oct 2017, 8:27 am

I just don't get it....JA has his theory as presented in his book based on his interpretation of the documentary record. I believe he should then follow leads, if they contradict his findings, be open to possibly being in error. Be open to his entire theory being in error and be prepared to not only express that but to hope that other researchers can correct anything he may have gotten wrong. It should be the spirit of inquiry and research....especially in this case. Laverick couldn't have said it better and thanks Greg for that post. That is exactly what I am hitting at myself. Its thrilling to learn new, corroborated facts about the case instead of trying to (fiercely I might add) hold on to an interpretation or observation we as researchers have.

Interestingly enough, I have the H&L+CD pdf if anyone is interested and JA has essentially given permission for it to be posted publicly in his most recent (and very good? Maybe? Not NEARLY a researcher among the ranks of you guys but he has an interesting theory regarding the Men on the 6th floor and their possible escape routes) podcast with Len Osanic last Thursday.

Wed 25 Oct 2017, 9:32 pm

BC_II wrote:I just don't get it....JA has his theory as presented in his book based on his interpretation of the documentary record. I believe he should then follow leads, if they contradict his findings, be open to possibly being in error. Be open to his entire theory being in error and be prepared to not only express that but to hope that other researchers can correct anything he may have gotten wrong. It should be the spirit of inquiry and research....especially in this case. Laverick couldn't have said it better and thanks Greg for that post. That is exactly what I am hitting at myself. Its thrilling to learn new, corroborated facts about the case instead of trying to (fiercely I might add) hold on to an interpretation or observation we as researchers have.

Interestingly enough, I have the H&L+CD pdf if anyone is interested and JA has essentially given permission for it to be posted publicly in his most recent (and very good? Maybe? Not NEARLY a researcher among the ranks of you guys but he has an interesting theory regarding the Men on the 6th floor and their possible escape routes) podcast with Len Osanic last Thursday.

BC,

there has been no dissent on this allowed from the very beginning of the research. I know of at least one person shut out from those early days due to making a very simple and sensible observation that they needed a better example of a certain aspect of the theory because the one they were using was not really close enough.

Haven't listened to the podcast, but did read a tiny bit about it. If there was actually shooter on the 6th floor, it would be a plausible theory.

Thu 26 Oct 2017, 12:08 pm

greg parker wrote:
Haven't listened to the podcast, but did read a tiny bit about it. If there was actually shooter on the 6th floor, it would be a plausible theory.

"IF" being the important word.

I guess Armstrong doesn't get out much, does he?

It's been several decades since I thought there was a shooter on the sixth floor.

Jus' sayin'.

Fri 27 Oct 2017, 12:30 am

Thanks to Ed and others here we know there was not a shot fired from the TSBD period!

No need for two Lee's now is there.

Sat 28 Oct 2017, 8:55 am

Stellar work from Bernie. Cross is cross. He appears happy with 2 LHO's but not so sure about 2 Marguerite's, if i read him right.
I do read what people write, btw.
So does Bernie......right?

Sat 28 Oct 2017, 9:09 am

steely dan wrote:Stellar work from Bernie. Cross is cross. He appears happy with 2 LHO's but not so sure about 2 Marguerite's, if i read him right.
I do read what people write, btw.
So does Bernie......right?

Bernie is simply trying to get Michael to see that these guys are the ones not having evidence where they should - that is in regard to claims about the autopsy and how the boys got to look so much alike.

Michael however seems to believe that Bernie is ascribing those beliefs to him. He is NOT. But when Michal points out lack of evidence on one side, he needs to consider it is incumbent on the theorist to supply the evidence.

The debunkings that Michael denies are here and at Tracey's site - in abundance. All supported by evidence and I have repeatedly offered to debate their best and brightest - who I believe is Doc Norwood - to a debate.

If the doc won't make himself available, I'll let them nominate someone.

Let's settle this in a debate done within the confines of whatever rules they want to insist upon. They certainly don't seem scared of me from a distance... how about we let's cut that distance?

Sat 28 Oct 2017, 9:35 am

Pehaps a neutral FB page could be set up away from the forums. When you turned up at the FOO for a proposed debate it ended with wild panic from the Fez and a ban for yourself. Your not allowed to post at the EF, something Hargrove's eternally grateful for, and the H&L high preists are hardly likely to turn up here.

Sat 28 Oct 2017, 9:46 am

steely dan wrote:Pehaps a neutral FB page could be set up away from the forums. When you turned up at the FOO for a proposed debate it ended with wild panic from the Fez and a ban for yourself. Your not allowed to post at the EF, something Hargrove's eternally grateful for, and the H&L high preists are hardly likely to turn up here.

I'll happily set up the FB page as soon as I get a taker for the debate.

Sat 28 Oct 2017, 9:50 am

The files will be released before that happens Wink

Sat 28 Oct 2017, 10:17 am

You know what I really really detest about the Fez?

Well, lot's to choose from... but these sort of tactics really get me steamed...

The Fez to Tracy wrote:Bottom line Tracy, you are simply not qualified to offer opinionated criticism... Stick with the exhumation and Asperger's as your pillars...

The Fez knows full well that Tracy has never said a word about Asperger's. That would be, I assume, because Tracy is doubtful about it.

This is simply the Fez showing his true colors when he is getting smashed - he resorts to smears that he knows to be totally untrue.

Look up the word Fez in any standard OzROKC dictionary: It means coward; smear-merchant; fact-screwer; creepy cult member; utter prick

Sat 28 Oct 2017, 10:48 am

greg parker wrote:You know what I really really detest about the Fez?

Well, lot's to choose from... but these sort of tactics really get me steamed...

The Fez to Tracy wrote:Bottom line Tracy, you are simply not qualified to offer opinionated criticism... Stick with the exhumation and Asperger's as your pillars...

The Fez knows full well that Tracy has never said a word about Asperger's. That would be, I assume, because Tracy is doubtful about it.

This is simply the Fez showing his true colors when he is getting smashed - he resorts to smears that he knows to be totally untrue.

Look up the word Fez in any standard OzROKC dictionary: It means coward; smear-merchant; fact-screwer; creepy cult member; utter prick

And the Fez's area of expertise is........sloping shoulders!
What a bellend.

Mon 30 Oct 2017, 7:43 am

steely dan wrote:The files will be released before that happens

And, lest we forget, Hell will be affected by the oncoming Ice Age.

Mon 30 Oct 2017, 12:05 pm

Jim Hargrove wrote:About the only time I was there he seemed to be interested more in scatological insults than real debate, declaring that my “face is in my feces” or something like that. You guys are free to wallow in his dirt for as long as you like. I no longer follow any of your links there.
Perhaps Mr. Parker can apologize to the moderators here and work something out if he desires to debate me. I hope he does.

Never said that, or anything like that. Putting words in my mouth is just another of the tactics used.

I do not owe the Ed Forum owners/mods any apologies. They allowed a member to lie about me - even after a third party who had been mentioned in the attempted smear, denied I had said any of the things alleged. And that person was someone known to be no friend of this forum, so praise be to her for telling the truth and not taking advantage of the lies. The point is however, that Gilbride's lies were left up, even though I had drawn attention to them, while my rebuttal, which contained no expletives at all, was deleted. I am the one owed the apology.

I can set up a forum here in which no one can post except myself, Jim and any moderator he wants to use. I assume the Ed Forum could do the same, but of course, they would have to lift the ban... I'm happy either way.

Mon 30 Oct 2017, 5:55 pm

greg parker wrote:

Jim Hargrove wrote:About the only time I was there he seemed to be interested more in scatological insults than real debate, declaring that my “face is in my feces” or something like that. You guys are free to wallow in his dirt for as long as you like. I no longer follow any of your links there.
Perhaps Mr. Parker can apologize to the moderators here and work something out if he desires to debate me. I hope he does.

Never said that, or anything like that. Putting words in my mouth is just another of the tactics used.

I do not owe the Ed Forum owners/mods any apologies. They allowed a member to lie about me - even after a third party who had been mentioned in the attempted smear, denied I had said any of the things alleged. And that person was someone known to be no friend of this forum, so praise be to her for telling the truth and not taking advantage of the lies. The point is however, that Gilbride's lies were left up, even though I had drawn attention to them, while my rebuttal, which contained no expletives at all, was deleted. I am the one owed the apology.

I can set up a forum here in which no one can post except myself, Jim and any moderator he wants to use. I assume the Ed Forum could do the same, but of course, they would have to lift the ban... I'm happy either way.

That's not something Greg would say nor do we favour the scatological insults here. Why would we call him a shithead or shitface when fucking idiot is so much more apt? We may have said Hargrove has his head so far up Armstrong's arse he can't think for himself but that's not a scatological insult. Its a salient fact.

Mon 30 Oct 2017, 6:32 pm

greg parker wrote:

Jim Hargrove wrote:About the only time I was there he seemed to be interested more in scatological insults than real debate, declaring that my “face is in my feces” or something like that. You guys are free to wallow in his dirt for as long as you like. I no longer follow any of your links there.
Perhaps Mr. Parker can apologize to the moderators here and work something out if he desires to debate me. I hope he does.

Never said that, or anything like that. Putting words in my mouth is just another of the tactics used.

I do not owe the Ed Forum owners/mods any apologies. They allowed a member to lie about me - even after a third party who had been mentioned in the attempted smear, denied I had said any of the things alleged. And that person was someone known to be no friend of this forum, so praise be to her for telling the truth and not taking advantage of the lies. The point is however, that Gilbride's lies were left up, even though I had drawn attention to them, while my rebuttal, which contained no expletives at all, was deleted. I am the one owed the apology.

I can set up a forum here in which no one can post except myself, Jim and any moderator he wants to use. I assume the Ed Forum could do the same, but of course, they would have to lift the ban... I'm happy either way.

He managed to blame you for Stan's meme which had The Vacant Lot's face smeared with chocolate. Mind you, chocolate can be dirty if you use your imagination.

Mon 30 Oct 2017, 8:44 pm

Anyone dumb enough to believe HL will be picked to pieces in a one on one debate with Greg and anyone who doesn't believe it but uses it to sell books will never consent to going one on one with Greg or anyone else.

In any event Hargrove appears unable to function without attendant acolytes to aid in changing and forking topics, and they only exist in the threads at EF. Bottom line is this is not going to happen because Hargrove nor anyone else has a reasonable case for HL.

Wed 01 Nov 2017, 9:11 am

Jake Sykes wrote:Anyone dumb enough to believe HL will be picked to pieces in a one on one debate with Greg and anyone who doesn't believe it but uses it to sell books will never consent to going one on one with Greg or anyone else.

In any event Hargrove appears unable to function without attendant acolytes to aid in changing and forking topics, and they only exist in the threads at EF. Bottom line is this is not going to happen because Hargrove nor anyone else has a reasonable case for HL.

Still waiting on at last one of them to stand up for they allegedly believe and can prove. How hard can it be?

If none of them will come here and I can't go o the ed forum,Tracey's suggestion, tho ignored by the H & L crowd, does sound pretty good to me.

In fact, it could be a good site for lots of purposes....

Over to you Jim http://www.debate.org/debates/

Wed 01 Nov 2017, 9:25 am

Don't hold your breath, Greg.

They are dishonest and dishonorable. They will not want to meet in any fair playing field. If they don't have the advantage of controlling the mods and the ability to gang up on one, they will simply retreat to their corner and hurl insults, and feces too I should imagine.

That's their standard MO.

Wed 01 Nov 2017, 10:40 am

If they're not morphing the topics into some alternate universe then they are forking them off into hyperbolic paraboloids to nowhere.

To sum it up then, they are disgusting morph'n-forkers.

Thu 02 Nov 2017, 12:22 pm

Jake Sykes wrote:If they're not morphing the topics into some alternate universe then they are forking them off into hyperbolic paraboloids to nowhere.

To sum it up then, they are disgusting morph'n-forkers.

Fri 03 Nov 2017, 10:59 am

Bernie says:

"Yes! That's Lee! And he's got a 13" head. Now I get it! Foul play. Big plot. Bad CIA. Ok, well done. I'm now a convert.
But how did he end up in Harvey's grave?"

But the forkin' morphin'forkers won't answer. They never do. They just morphin'fork the other way then they do their data doodoo all over the place. So transparent! (them, not the data doodoo)

They won't accept that one exhumation proves a book that thick is just plain wrong. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of fellows though.

Fri 03 Nov 2017, 10:42 pm

Jake Sykes wrote:Bernie says:

"Yes! That's Lee! And he's got a 13" head. Now I get it! Foul play. Big plot. Bad CIA. Ok, well done. I'm now a convert.
But how did he end up in Harvey's grave?"

But the forkin' morphin'forkers won't answer. They never do. They just morphin'fork the other way then they do their data doodoo all over the place. So transparent! (them, not the data doodoo)

They won't accept that one exhumation proves a book that thick is just plain wrong. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of fellows though.

Sounds like the plot for Rocky Horror II!

For those unaware, Jack White, the birth mother of the Harvey phenomenon (he really should have filed a paternity suit against Armstrong), had previously excreted the 13" head stinker during his stint with the HSCA. Of course, other experts on that panel poo-pooed the theory.

If you are already splitting your sides, hold them together as you discover the reason for the 13" head: it is - and I quote JW directly here, "I have tentatively concluded that ID photos of persons with 13-inch heads may be some sort of unique intelligence agency "marker" to subtly identify the bearer as an intelligence agent."

Let's face it, you can't get any more subtle than a 13" head.

Fri 03 Nov 2017, 10:50 pm

I take it none of the Defenders of the Universe can make themselves available for a debate.

Pity. They talk a good fight.

Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

Re: Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

Re: Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

Re: Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

Re: Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

Re: Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

Re: Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

You ain't gonna know what you learn if you knew it.......

Checkmate.

Re: Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

Re: Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

You ain't gonna know what you learn if you knew it.......

Checkmate.

Re: Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

Re: Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

You ain't gonna know what you learn if you knew it.......

Checkmate.

Re: Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

Re: Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

You ain't gonna know what you learn if you knew it.......

Checkmate.

Re: Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

Re: Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

Re: Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

Re: Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

You ain't gonna know what you learn if you knew it.......

Checkmate.

Re: Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

Re: Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

Re: Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

Re: Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

Re: Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

Re: Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

Re: Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

Re: Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye

Re: Agent Laverick hits a Bullseye