International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=91)
-   -   JFK Conspiracy Theories VII: Late November back in '63... (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=329916)

HSienzant 9th June 2018 01:09 PM

JFK Conspiracy Theories VII: Late November back in '63...
 
Mod Info This is a continuation from part VI. As is usual the split point is arbitrary and participants are free to refer to posts in the previous iterations of the thread.
Posted By:Agatha






Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321743)
No, I’m claiming that nowhere in the thread is Larsen conflating ’should’ with ’shall’.

On the contrary, he repeatedly says that the regulations is just that, regulations, and if someone can show that this regulation was arbitrarily followed, the argument for a forgery based on the absence of bank stamps disappears.

I agree.

1. Yes, the regulations states that certain bank stamps should be present on PMO’s 1963, absent on the Hidell PMO.

2. What does it say about the authenticity of said Hidel PMO.

Well, it depends on how common it was that this regulation was followed.

It also depends on what the meaning of 'should' is.

In a legal sense, 'should' doesn't mean mandatory. It means 'optional but recommended'.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/a...abandon_shall/

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=575768
"Edit: "should" means a person is "encouraged" to do something while "must" and "shall" mean they are required to do it."
http://reqexperts.com/blog/2012/10/u...l-will-should/
Shall – Requirement: Shall is used to indicate a requirement that is contractually binding...
Should – Goals, non-mandatory provisions. Should is used to indicate a goal...
Keep pretending you don't understand or never saw the point being made.

Hank

HSienzant 9th June 2018 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321743)
No, I’m claiming that nowhere in the thread is Larsen conflating ’should’ with ’shall’.

On the contrary, you and he are pretending 'should' means 'required' or 'must' but it doesn't.

It means 'recommended but optional'.

Hank

HSienzant 9th June 2018 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321762)
How do you know it was ”paid”?

William Waldman testified Klein's made a deposit of $13,827.98 on March 13th, 1963, of which one of the items was a deposit of 21.45. The money order from "A. Hidell" (Oswald's known alias) in the amount of #21.45 passed through their system on that day, March 13th, and would have been deposited to the bank on that day (the idea in business is to book sales as quickly as possible and pay vendors as late as possible).

== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. You have just now stamped Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9 with your endorsement stamp?
Mr. WALDMAN. Correct.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any way of knowing when exactly this money order was deposited by your company?
Mr. WALDMAN. I cannot specifically say when this money order was deposited by our company; however, as previously stated, a money order for $21.45 passed through our cash register on March 13, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. You're reading from Waldman---
Mr. WALDMAN. From a Mr. A. Hidell of Post Office Box No. 2915, from Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And you are now reading from Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7?
Mr. WALDMAN. As indicated on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7. Now, we cannot specifically say when this money order was deposited, but on our deposit of March 13, 1963, we show an item of $21.45, as indicated on the Xerox copy of our deposit slip marked, or identified by--as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 10.
Mr. BELIN. And I have just marked as a document what you are reading from, which appears to be a deposit with the First National Bank of Chicago by your company; is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
Mr. BELIN. And on that deposit, one of the items is $21.45, out of a total deposit that day of $13,827.98; is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
== UNQUOTE ==

Hank

bknight 9th June 2018 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321762)
How do you know it was ”paid”?

Because LHO got the merchandise, very simple if you think about it instead of jousting with windmills;)

manifesto 9th June 2018 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12321772)
Because LHO got the merchandise,

Well, how do you know that?

bknight 9th June 2018 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HSienzant (Post 12321771)
William Waldman testified Klein's made a deposit of $13,827.98 on March 13th, 1963, of which one of the items was a deposit of 21.45. The money order from "A. Hidell" (Oswald's known alias) in the amount of #21.45 passed through their system on that day, March 13th, and would have been deposited to the bank on that day (the idea in business is to book sales as quickly as possible and pay vendors as late as possible).

== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. You have just now stamped Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9 with your endorsement stamp?
Mr. WALDMAN. Correct.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any way of knowing when exactly this money order was deposited by your company?
Mr. WALDMAN. I cannot specifically say when this money order was deposited by our company; however, as previously stated, a money order for $21.45 passed through our cash register on March 13, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. You're reading from Waldman---
Mr. WALDMAN. From a Mr. A. Hidell of Post Office Box No. 2915, from Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And you are now reading from Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7?
Mr. WALDMAN. As indicated on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7. Now, we cannot specifically say when this money order was deposited, but on our deposit of March 13, 1963, we show an item of $21.45, as indicated on the Xerox copy of our deposit slip marked, or identified by--as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 10.
Mr. BELIN. And I have just marked as a document what you are reading from, which appears to be a deposit with the First National Bank of Chicago by your company; is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
Mr. BELIN. And on that deposit, one of the items is $21.45, out of a total deposit that day of $13,827.98; is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
== UNQUOTE ==

Hank

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: Any other questions from he who has read "everything" there is concerning the assassination, that is on the CT side, not the reality side?

manifesto 9th June 2018 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HSienzant (Post 12321765)
It also depends on what the meaning of 'should' is.

In a legal sense, 'should' doesn't mean mandatory. It means 'optional but recommended'.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/a...abandon_shall/

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=575768
"Edit: "should" means a person is "encouraged" to do something while "must" and "shall" mean they are required to do it."
http://reqexperts.com/blog/2012/10/u...l-will-should/
Shall – Requirement: Shall is used to indicate a requirement that is contractually binding...
Should – Goals, non-mandatory provisions. Should is used to indicate a goal...
Keep pretending you don't understand or never saw the point being made.

Hank

But you do agree that the federal regulations states that PMO’s ’should’ be stamped with bank endorsements on both sides in a prominent way?

Yes or no.

bknight 9th June 2018 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321776)
Well, how do you know that?

That is very simple also, A. Hidell's hand writing on the MO was positively as LHO.


How many more posts/bandwidth are you going to continue this fruitless search for someone to answer your pointless questions.
The money order was paid, LHO got the weapon used in the assassination, to the exclusion of every other weapon in existence.

RoboTimbo 9th June 2018 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321776)
Well, how do you know that?

Are you ;) claiming someone else owned Oswald's rifle?

RoboTimbo 9th June 2018 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321780)
But you do agree that the federal regulations states that PMO’s ’should’ be stamped with bank endorsements on both sides in a prominent way?

Yes or no.

Do you ;) agree that it was paid?

manifesto 9th June 2018 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo (Post 12321793)
Do you ;) agree that it was paid?

No, certainly not.

manifesto 9th June 2018 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo (Post 12321792)
Are you ;) claiming someone else owned Oswald's rifle?

No, I claim that Oswald did not own the rifle.

RoboTimbo 9th June 2018 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321795)
No, certainly not.

You ;) will need to provide evidence for your claim.

RoboTimbo 9th June 2018 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321798)
No, I claim that Oswald did not own the rifle.

You ;) will need to provide evidence for your claim. Start with: who do CTs claim owned the rifle? We'll need to see the bill of sale and a properly endorsed money order.

manifesto 9th June 2018 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12321789)
That is very simple also, A. Hidell's hand writing on the MO was positively as LHO.

Photographs and Xerox copies of documents can’t be conclusively identified by analysing alleged handwriting.

Therefore the original is needed. Was it available to the hand writing experts consulted?


Quote:

How many more posts/bandwidth are you going to continue this fruitless search for someone to answer your pointless questions.
The money order was paid,
Well, that is the issue presently under consideration. Do you have any new evidence you would like to provide or are you just waiting time and space, aserting religionsly contrived dogma?

Quote:

LHO got the weapon
How do you know?

Quote:

used in the assassination, to the exclusion of every other weapon in existence.
I’ll take it you know this by actually studying the alleged evidence?

manifesto 9th June 2018 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo (Post 12321804)
You ;) will need to provide evidence for your claim. Start with: who do CTs claim owned the rifle? We'll need to see the bill of sale and a properly endorsed money order.

Fortunatly, this is not how it works. It’s the positive claim, that he purchased and owned the rifle that needs supporting evidence.

Have any?

HSienzant 9th June 2018 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321780)
But you do agree that the federal regulations states that PMO’s ’should’ be stamped with bank endorsements on both sides in a prominent way?

Yes or no.

Asked and answered. By my count at least four times now.

Yes, but it depends on what the meaning of 'should' is. In a legal sense, 'should' doesn't mean mandatory. It means 'optional but recommended'.

Hank

manifesto 9th June 2018 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HSienzant (Post 12321782)
On the contrary, you and he are pretending 'should' means 'required' or 'must' but it doesn't.

It means 'recommended but optional'.

Hank

Where do Larsen ”pretend” this?

Show us.

HSienzant 9th June 2018 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321806)
Photographs and Xerox copies of documents can’t be conclusively identified by analysing alleged handwriting.

Therefore the original is needed. Was it available to the hand writing experts consulted?

Yes.

Hank

HSienzant 9th June 2018 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321811)
Where do Larsen ”pretend” this?

Show us.

Larsen in that thread you or MicahJava linked to a few pages back.
You in this thread.

Do you agree with the below? If not, why not:

In a legal sense, 'should' doesn't mean mandatory. It means 'optional but recommended'.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/a...abandon_shall/

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=575768

"Edit: "should" means a person is "encouraged" to do something while "must" and "shall" mean they are required to do it."

http://reqexperts.com/blog/2012/10/u...l-will-should/

Shall – Requirement: Shall is used to indicate a requirement that is contractually binding...
Should – Goals, non-mandatory provisions. Should is used to indicate a goal...


Hank

RoboTimbo 9th June 2018 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321806)
Photographs and Xerox copies of documents can’t be conclusively identified by analysing alleged handwriting.

Therefore the original is needed. Was it available to the hand writing experts consulted?

What does all of the evidence in the Warren Commission Report say about it?

Quote:

Well, that is the issue presently under consideration. Do you have any new evidence you would like to provide or are you just waiting time and space, aserting religionsly contrived dogma?
You ;) claim it wasn't paid. Should be easy for you ;) to show where the bank refused to honor it.

Quote:

How do you know?
What does the consilience of evidence in the Warren Commission Report say about it?

Quote:

I’ll take it you know this by actually studying the alleged evidence?
Are you ;) claiming something about the evidence? You ;) will need to provide evidence.

RoboTimbo 9th June 2018 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321807)
Fortunatly, this is not how it works. It’s the positive claim, that he purchased and owned the rifle that needs supporting evidence.

Yes, you ;) claimed he didn't own his rifle so now you ;) have to provide evidence of that. Are you ;) retracting your claim?

manifesto 9th June 2018 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HSienzant (Post 12321808)
Yes

Good. Settled.

Next question is, what does this mean considering the authenticity of the Hidell PMO.

You are claiming that, since that word ”should” isn’t mandatory in a legal/judiciary sense, the absence of the regulated bank stamps on the Hidell PMO is NOT evidence of a forgery, correct?

RoboTimbo 9th June 2018 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321807)
It’s the positive claim...that needs supporting evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321798)
I claim that Oswald did not own the rifle.

You ;) need to get busy providing that evidence.

smartcooky 9th June 2018 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321780)
But you do agree that the federal regulations states that PMO’s ’should’ be stamped with bank endorsements on both sides in a prominent way?

Yes or no.

Yes, I agree that it "should" (that is what the regulations state) but it doesn't have to be. The Oswald/Hidell PMO was simply among the many that wasn't. In any case, there is plenty of other evidence that proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Oswald/Hidell money order was banked and cleared...

1. Stamped with Klein's endorsement stamp.
2. Banked by Klein's on March 13.
3. Processed through the First National Bank bank of Chicago's batch processing system.
4. Sent to the Federal Reserve who stamped it with their file locator number
5. Found by the FBI after a lengthy search

What else is it going to take for you to accept that this was not forged, it was a genuine postal money order.

manifesto 9th June 2018 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HSienzant (Post 12321814)
Larsen in that thread you or MicahJava linked to a few pages back.
You in this thread.

Hank

Lol. Cite the parts where he ”pretends” that the regulation is proof of a forgery.

After this, do the same with my writing in this thread.

manifesto 9th June 2018 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HSienzant (Post 12321812)
Yes.

Hank

Was it? Could you show the evidence of this?

RoboTimbo 9th June 2018 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321825)
Lol. Cite the parts where he ”pretends” that the regulation is proof of a forgery.

You ;) are going to get such a spanking for transporting those goalposts across state lines.

HSienzant 9th June 2018 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321821)
Good. Settled.

Next question is, what does this mean considering the authenticity of the Hidell PMO.

You are claiming that, since that word ”should” isn’t mandatory in a legal/judiciary sense, the absence of the regulated bank stamps on the Hidell PMO is NOT evidence of a forgery, correct?


Of course the absence of the optional bank stamps doesn't indicate a forgery. I'm claiming that you've presented no evidence to date that there is anything wrong with the money order whatsoever, despite your arguments going back at least ten pages on this forum.

Hank

RoboTimbo 9th June 2018 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321827)
Was it? Could you show the evidence of this?

Don't forget you ;) need to provide evidence for your two most recent claims.

HSienzant 9th June 2018 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HSienzant (Post 12321782)
On the contrary, you and he are pretending 'should' means 'required' or 'must' but it doesn't. It means 'recommended but optional'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321811)
Where do Larsen ”pretend” this?
Show us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HSienzant (Post 12321814)
Larsen in that thread you or MicahJava linked to a few pages back. You in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321825)
Lol. Cite the parts where he ”pretends” that the regulation is proof of a forgery.

After this, do the same with my writing in this thread.

Straw man argument. You're changing the claim I made.

Hank

bknight 9th June 2018 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321806)
Photographs and Xerox copies of documents can’t be conclusively identified by analysing alleged handwriting.

Therefore the original is needed. Was it available to the hand writing experts consulted?


Well, that is the issue presently under consideration. Do you have any new evidence you would like to provide or are you just waiting time and space, aserting religionsly contrived dogma?

How do you know?

I’ll take it you know this by actually studying the alleged evidence?

Hank answered the first question.
As to the second, I rely on evidence not the bare assertions you throw out on a daily basis.
As to the third, of course not that evidence is stored away, but the ballistics evidence is available, all you have to do is search for it, so don't ask me to do your research by providing a citation. I sure if you searched any one these threads, you could find it/them.

abaddon 9th June 2018 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321798)
No, I claim that Oswald did not own the rifle.

? What? Was he simply renting it? That claim gets you nowhere and still puts the rifle in LHO's hands. On top, you have precisely **** all evidence for such a claim.

You seem to be entirely innocent of how you self represent on the internet. Sure, AAH may exist on this particular site, but the also exists sites like the web archive, a site which I am a paid member of. Why would I pay to be a member of such a site? Easy. Folks like your try to pretend that they did not post what they posted. They simply do not get off the conspiratorial hook so easily. As they should not.

manifesto 9th June 2018 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 12321842)
? What? Was he simply renting it? That claim gets you nowhere and still puts the rifle in LHO's hands. On top, you have precisely **** all evidence for such a claim.

He neither rented, borrowed or owned it. He did not shoot at JFK or Tippit and he was not part in a conspiracy to do that.

He was innocent.

Quote:

You seem to be entirely innocent of how you self represent on the internet. Sure, AAH may exist on this particular site, but the also exists sites like the web archive, a site which I am a paid member of. Why would I pay to be a member of such a site? Easy. Folks like your try to pretend that they did not post what they posted. They simply do not get off the conspiratorial hook so easily. As they should not.
What? Is this some kind of threat?

HSienzant 9th June 2018 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321827)
Was it? Could you show the evidence of this?

Yes I could.

Hank

manifesto 9th June 2018 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HSienzant (Post 12321829)
Of course the absence of the optional bank stamps doesn't indicate a forgery. I'm claiming that you've presented no evidence to date that there is anything wrong with the money order whatsoever, despite your arguments going back at least ten pages on this forum.

Hank

I have been trying to establish that the federal regulations in 1963 stated that there should be bank endorsement stamps on PMO’s, stamps absent on the Hidell PMO.

This has taken a very long time, but is at last settled and agreed upon.

Next step is, as I said, to see what this means regarding the authenticity of said Hidell PMO and I haven’t even started to argue this in any way.

I guess that your earlier conflation of these two separate issues and your present preempting of arguments you believe I will present is somewhat signs of anguish?

What is it that scare you with this Hidell PMO, Hank? Are we threading on dangerous ground threatening to collapse your decades long carefully constructed cognitive castle protecting you from Reality coming crushing in on all sides destroying your little kingdom of Faith?

Why ’should’ bank endorsement stamps be present on both sides of the PMO? Why this ”suggestion/advise/recommendation” in the federal regulations?

Do you know?

manifesto 9th June 2018 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HSienzant (Post 12321868)
Yes I could.

Hank

Well, where is it?

HSienzant 9th June 2018 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321876)
Well, where is it?

Where is what? Your evidence for the 100 claims you made?

I have no clue.

Hank

HSienzant 9th June 2018 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manifesto (Post 12321875)
I have been trying to establish that the federal regulations in 1963 stated that there should be bank endorsement stamps on PMO’s, stamps absent on the Hidell PMO. This has taken a very long time, but is at last settled and agreed upon.

You agree then that bank stamps are optional and their absence doesn't mean anything?

Or are you pretending still they must be present?

Hank

manifesto 9th June 2018 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HSienzant (Post 12321832)
Straw man argument. You're changing the claim I made.

Hank

Where do Larsen pretend that, ”'should' means 'required' or 'must'”? Cite the relevant text.

After this, show where I pretends the same.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:01 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.