ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags assassinations , JFK assassination , John F. Kennedy , Kennedy conspiracies

Reply
Old 9th June 2018, 03:49 PM   #41
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
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
Back in the conflation phase again. No I claime that:

THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS STATES THAT BANK ENDORSMENT STAMPS SHOULD BE PRESENT ON BOTH SIDES ON THE PMO, STAMPS ABSENT ON THE HIDELL PMO.

Is anything of this not factual?
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 03:50 PM   #42
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,533
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Yes
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
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?
I see what you did there. You took my 'yes' out of context and pretended it means something it didn't.

Congratulations, you've learned well. You're now prepared to author your first conspiracy theorist book!

What I wrote:
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
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'.
What you quoted:
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Yes
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 9th June 2018 at 04:06 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 03:55 PM   #43
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,533
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Back in the conflation phase again. No I claime that:

THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS STATES THAT BANK ENDORSMENT STAMPS SHOULD BE PRESENT ON BOTH SIDES ON THE PMO, STAMPS ABSENT ON THE HIDELL PMO.

Is anything of this not factual?
Maybe if you used bigger fonts and bold face?

It's misleading. 'Should' doesn't mean 'must' when used in legal documents.

I've explained that almost half a dozen times. I've cited for it as well. Others have pointed out the issue as well.

Quit trying to force it to say something it doesn't. Quit pretending 'should' means 'must'.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 03:56 PM   #44
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Where is what? Your evidence for the 100 claims you made?

I have no clue.

Hank
You said that the hand writing experts had access to the original document when stating that it was Lee Harvey Oswalds hand writing.

Where is your evidence of this?
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 03:59 PM   #45
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Maybe if you used bigger fonts and bold face?

It's misleading. 'Should' doesn't mean 'must' when used in legal documents.

I've explained that almost half a dozen times. I've cited for it as well. Others have pointed out the issue as well.

Quit trying to force it to say something it doesn't. Quit pretending 'should' means 'must'.

Hank
I do not propose any interpretation of the regulation. I’m quoting what the regulation says.

The intepretation is another issue.

And, you have conceded to this. Are you now retracting?

Last edited by manifesto; 9th June 2018 at 04:15 PM.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 04:03 PM   #46
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 891
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
I do not propose any interpretation of the regulation. I’m quoting what the regulation says.

The intepretation is another issue.

And, you have conceded to to this. Are you now retracting?
Funny I don't remember his approval of your interpretation. Are you making this up, as you do with all your posts?
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 04:04 PM   #47
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
I see what you did there. You took my 'yes' out of context and pretended it means something it didn't.
No, I’m stating that you make one issue out of two.

1. What does the regulation litterally say?

2. What is the meaning of the regulation?

This is obviously two different issues and needs to be settled one at the time.

You insist on conflating these to issues?

Why?
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 04:10 PM   #48
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 891
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No, I’m stating that you make one issue out of two.

1. What does the regulation litterally say?

2. What is the meaning of the regulation?

This is obviously two different issues and needs to be settled one at the time.

You insist on conflating these to issues?

Why?
Moot as the money order was paid.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 04:14 PM   #49
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
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.
So, why have this ”recommendation/advise/suggestion” at all?

What was its purpose?
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 04:18 PM   #50
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Maybe if you used bigger fonts and bold face?

It's misleading. 'Should' doesn't mean 'must' when used in legal documents.

I've explained that almost half a dozen times. I've cited for it as well. Others have pointed out the issue as well.

Quit trying to force it to say something it doesn't. Quit pretending 'should' means 'must'.

Hank
I’m not pretending anything, I cite the words in the regulation. It doesn’t say ”must” anywhere, it says ”should” which is precisely the word I’m using.

1. What is litterally written?

2. What does it mean?

Two issues. One at a time.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 04:27 PM   #51
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,244
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
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.
Now you will need to provide evidence of those. You should probably stop making unsupported claims and start providing evidence for the ones you think you can support.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 04:30 PM   #52
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,244
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Back in the conflation phase again. No I claime that:

THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS STATES THAT BANK ENDORSMENT STAMPS SHOULD BE PRESENT ON BOTH SIDES ON THE PMO, STAMPS ABSENT ON THE HIDELL PMO.

Is anything of this not factual?
You do agree that Sandy Larsen was an idiot for stupidly conflating "should" and "shall" and dishonestly pretending it meant something?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 04:31 PM   #53
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,244
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
I do not propose any interpretation of the regulation. I’m quoting what the regulation says.

The intepretation is another issue.

And, you have conceded to this. Are you now retracting?
Are you claiming that the money order was not honored?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 04:32 PM   #54
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,244
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
So, why have this ”recommendation/advise/suggestion” at all?

What was its purpose?
Yes, why indeed? It's your claim, what construction do you put on it?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 04:44 PM   #55
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
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
So, what is the purpose of the ”should/advise/recommendation/suggestion”? Why have it in the regulations at all?

Aesthetics?
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 04:48 PM   #56
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,244
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
So, what is the purpose of the ”should/advise/recommendation/suggestion”? Why have it in the regulations at all?

Aesthetics?
It's your claim . The null hypothesis is that it was paid. CT loons hate that.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 04:55 PM   #57
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,533
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
You said that the hand writing experts had access to the original document when stating that it was Lee Harvey Oswalds hand writing.

Where is your evidence of this?
You said a lot of things - a hundred when I was keeping track - where's your evidence for any of those?

You first.

Go ahead. I can wait.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 05:11 PM   #58
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,931
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
I’m not pretending anything, I cite the words in the regulation. It doesn’t say ”must” anywhere, it says ”should” which is precisely the word I’m using.

1. What is litterally written?
Should

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
2. What does it mean?
The Federal Plain Language guidelines (the document used for correct writing of all Federal Regulations) states that "should" is a recommendation

https://plainlanguage.gov/media/FederalPLGuidelines.pdf

Section III
Sub-section a
Clause 1
Sub-clause iv

Instead of using “shall”, use:
“must” for an obligation,
“must not” for a prohibition,
"may” for a discretionary action,
“should” for a recommendation.


This has not changed since the last time I posted it, and it will not change if and when I post it again in the future, no matter how many times that might be.

Its time for you to admit that you are wrong!
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 05:14 PM   #59
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,441
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Its time for you to admit that you are wrong!
He should.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 05:20 PM   #60
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,931
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
So, why have this ”recommendation/advise/suggestion” at all?

What was its purpose?
Asked...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=5249

...and answered
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=5257
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 05:21 PM   #61
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,931
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
He should.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 05:45 PM   #62
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Should



The Federal Plain Language guidelines (the document used for correct writing of all Federal Regulations) states that "should" is a recommendation

https://plainlanguage.gov/media/FederalPLGuidelines.pdf

Section III
Sub-section a
Clause 1
Sub-clause iv

Instead of using “shall”, use:
“must” for an obligation,
“must not” for a prohibition,
"may” for a discretionary action,
“should” for a recommendation.


This has not changed since the last time I posted it, and it will not change if and when I post it again in the future, no matter how many times that might be.

Its time for you to admit that you are wrong!
Yes, I have read this, but this was not my question. I ask you why this ’recommendation’ is made. What’s its purpose? What is gained if followed? What could be the downside if NOT followed?
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 05:49 PM   #63
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,244
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Yes, I have read this, but this was not my question. I ask you why this ’recommendation’ is made. What’s its purpose? What is gained if followed? What could be the downside if NOT followed?
What did the idiot Sandy Larsen think about it?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 05:52 PM   #64
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Yes, but the answer is to a question I did not make.

Continue from here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9&postcount=62
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 05:57 PM   #65
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,244
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Yes, but the answer is to a question I did not make.

Continue from here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9&postcount=62
You are over 100 behind. You CTs better get busy.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 06:34 PM   #66
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
You said a lot of things - a hundred when I was keeping track - where's your evidence for any of those?

You first.

Go ahead. I can wait.

Hank
Are you like me confronted by a barrage of crap from a whole school of fanatics or are you just being unable to provide evidence of your claim that hand writing experts studied the real documents when concluding that it was Oswald that signed it with his alleged alias?

Before the real document conviently ’disappeard’ from the FBI never to be seen again?

Have you at last found it?

Last edited by manifesto; 9th June 2018 at 07:06 PM.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 06:37 PM   #67
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,244
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Are you like me confronted by a barrage of crap from a whole school of fanatics or are you just being unable to provide evidence of your claim that hand writing experts studied the real documents when conculding that it was Oswald that signed it with his alleged alias?

Before the real document conviently ’disapperaded’ from the FBI never to be seen again?

Have you at last found it?
Are you still running away from answering questions about all of your blowhard claims? Typical CT , nothing of substance to contribute and nothing to back up their talk.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 07:19 PM   #68
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,533
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
So, why have this ”recommendation/advise/suggestion” at all?

What was its purpose?
What a silly question.

You're literally asking for information you know no one can provide. And that's what I predicted would happen.

Nobody here on this forum is the author of the quoted passage.

Nobody here is all that familiar with 1950s banking needs and postal service money orders.

We can presume however, that whatever group decided upon the draft of the passage in question, and whatever group ultimately determined to adopt it, they were both familiar with the 1950s banking needs and postal service money orders and the pressing issues of the day and decided that the passage as it existed in 1960 was the best at the time for its time.

And that they spent sufficient time to craft it to spell out what was absolutely mandatory (shall) and what was optional but desirable (should).

As I said above, you're following the CT playbook precisely. As one question is answered, simply quibble and
ask another and another and another.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...stcount=5264nd
It says 'should', not 'shall'. Go be a hero. Post the difference between 'should' and 'shall' on that forum, enlighten everyone to the misunderstanding, and everyone will thank you for resolving the issue, sing your praises and they won't ever raise the money order as an issue again.

Only kidding. They will of course quibble with the definition, ask if there's any exceptions, pretend they never saw your point, and of course, accuse you of being a shill and selling out to the other side. And bring it up again two weeks later as if it were never discussed before. Try living life on this side of the argument for once.
You're quibbling with the definition at this point and asking if there are exceptions.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 9th June 2018 at 07:50 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 07:20 PM   #69
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,533
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
I’m not pretending anything, I cite the words in the regulation. It doesn’t say ”must” anywhere, it says ”should” which is precisely the word I’m using.
1. What is litterally written?
"should"
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
2. What does it mean?
Optional, not mandatory, recommended.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Two issues. One at a time.
Did them one at a time. That was easy. We're done here.
Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 9th June 2018 at 07:51 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 07:24 PM   #70
traxy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 464
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
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.
How did his prints get on it I wonder. And what a coincidence that he was photographed with that same rifle in March of 1963. And what a coincidence that his handwriting is all over the back of that same photo.

Coincidences galore.
traxy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 07:35 PM   #71
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,533
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Are you like me confronted by a barrage of crap from a whole school of fanatics...
Three at last count. Is that enough for a school?

Only three on this board, but this is not the only thing that takes up my time, nor are these the only three fanatics I deal with. Try to remember it takes very little time for you to fling some mud and make a charge you won't support, and for me to clean up your mud and post the actual evidence. If anyone is suffering from overwork here, it's not you.


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
or are you just being unable to provide evidence of your claim that hand writing experts studied the real documents when concluding that it was Oswald that signed it with his alleged alias?
And there's the logical fallacy of the false dilemma.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/.../False-Dilemma
Description: When only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between two extremes. False dilemmas are usually characterized by “either this or that” language, but can also be characterized by omissions of choices.

You're pretending the only two choices are "I'm like you" or "The evidence doesn't exist". The third choice is I like yanking your chain.

You can find the evidence that the real money order was recovered and examined in James Cadigan's testimony. You should know this. You claimed to be very well read on the subject.


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Before the real document conviently ’disappeard’ from the FBI never to be seen again?

Have you at last found it?
What is your source for that claim that it's missing? Is this just another example of your mud flinging?

Here's a color image of the money order as found. It's not a photocopy of the original. This image is of the original money order:
http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/...8044?s=594x594

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 9th June 2018 at 07:56 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 07:49 PM   #72
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,167
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
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?
[IMG][/IMG]
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 07:50 PM   #73
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,167
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No, I claim that Oswald did not own the rifle.
[IMG][/IMG]
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 08:13 PM   #74
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
What a silly question.

You're literally asking for information you know no one can provide. And that's what I predicted would happen.

Nobody here on this forum is the author of the quoted passage.
But you claim the authority to interpret it?

Quote:
Nobody here is all that familiar with 1950s banking needs and postal service money orders.
1960. But you still claim to know what it all means?

Quote:
We can presume however, that whatever group decided upon the draft of the passage in question, and whatever group ultimately determined to adopt it, they were both familiar with the 1950s banking needs and postal service money orders and the pressing issues of the day and decided that the passage as it existed in 1960 was the best at the time for its time.
Wow. That is a tautology if there ever was one.

Quote:
And that they spent sufficient time to craft it to spell out what was absolutely mandatory (shall) and what was optional but desirable (should).
Yes, but why was it ”desirable”? What was the reason for making the ”recommendation”? What was its purpose?

Quote:
As I said above, you're following the CT playbook precisely. As one question is answered, simply quibble and
ask another and another and another.
I’m trying to pin down what you are actually claiming. Are you saying that the ”recommendation” was stated in the federal regulations for no reason at all?

Quote:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...stcount=5264nd
It says 'should', not 'shall'. Go be a hero. Post the difference between 'should' and 'shall' on that forum, enlighten everyone to the misunderstanding, and everyone will thank you for resolving the issue, sing your praises and they won't ever raise the money order as an issue again.
I have no issue with your ”interpretation” of the ’should’ in the regulation. I wonder why the ”recommendation” was made?

What was its purpose? Consequenses if followed? Consequenses if not followed?

Do you know?

Quote:
Only kidding. They will of course quibble with the definition, ask if there's any exceptions, pretend they never saw your point, and of course, accuse you of being a shill and selling out to the other side. And bring it up again two weeks later as if it were never discussed before. Try living life on this side of the argument for once. You're quibbling with the definition at this point and asking if there are exceptions.

Hank
No, it is you who have an old straw man machine in the garage in a desperate need of getting rid of.

Why the ”recommendation”? For what purpose?

Do you know? Have a guess?

Last edited by manifesto; 9th June 2018 at 08:18 PM.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 08:15 PM   #75
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
http://i64.tinypic.com/1zlf4vt.jpg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://<a href="http://i64.tinypic.c...zlf4vt.jpg</a>
Where in the photo does it say ”rifle owned by Oswald a.k.a. Hidell”?

On the barrel?
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 08:20 PM   #76
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,167
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Where in the photo does it say ”rifle owned by Oswald a.k.a. Hidell”?

On the barrel?


[IMG][/IMG]

__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 08:29 PM   #77
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by traxy View Post
How did his prints get on it I wonder.
Planted or manipulating him to hold it, leaving the prints.


Quote:
And what a coincidence that he was photographed with that same rifle in March of 1963.
Oswald himself said that it was a fabrication. That his head had been superimposed on another guys body and that he could prove it.

Do you see his clothes? He had no such clothes in his belongings. He was dirt poor.

Quote:
And what a coincidence that his handwriting is all over the back of that same photo.
Hand writings are easy to fake.

Quote:
Coincidences galore.
Yes, this case are packed with a ridiculous amount of ridiculous coincidents. It’s like a big jigsaw puzzle with millions of little pieces of which none fits with none.

That is NOT how reality works. This is how a sloppy cover-up of an even sloppier frame-up works.

Nothing fits.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 08:40 PM   #78
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,167
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Planted or manipulating him to hold it, leaving the prints.
[IMG][/IMG]

Quote:
Oswald himself said that it was a fabrication. That his head had been superimposed on another guys body and that he could prove it.
Was this before or after he signed it? Was this before of after he said he'd never been to Mexico City?

Quote:
Do you see his clothes? He had no such clothes in his belongings. He was dirt poor.


[IMG][/IMG]
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 08:41 PM   #79
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
"should"
Good, Hank. We are making progress. The regulation says that bank endorsement stamps ”should” be promintly present on both sides, stamps not present on the alleged Hidell PMO.

At last.

Quote:
Optional, not mandatory, recommended.
That rises the question of why it was ”recommended”. Do you know this? What was the purpose of the stamps? What was the benefits from following the ”recommendation”? What was the possible consequenses of NOT following the ”recommendation”?

Do you know?

Quote:
Did them one at a time. That was easy. We're done here.
Hank
We are done with number one, yes. At last.

Now it’s number two. Why the ”recommendation”.

Do you know?

Last edited by manifesto; 9th June 2018 at 08:46 PM.
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 08:51 PM   #80
Whip
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 919
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
'Should' doesn't mean 'must' when used in legal documents.
I can't think of a time it means 'must' ever really. 'Should' is always suggestive.
Whip is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:35 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.