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, 08:51 PM   #81
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,078
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
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...,blah, blah,blah
You do realize that once a money order has a bank stamp on the back that's it, right? It goes to that bank, you can't deposit the money order anywhere else than the bank of receipt stamped on the back.

That was true in 1963, and it is true now.
__________________
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, 09:04 PM   #82
manifesto
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,876
Originally Posted by Whip View Post
I can't think of a time it means 'must' ever really. 'Should' is always suggestive.
No one has claimed it means ”must” in a legal sense.

The issue is now why this ”recommendation” was made in the federal regulations. What was its purpose? What was the benefits if followed? The possible consequenses if NOT followed?

Do you know?
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, 09:05 PM   #83
manifesto
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,876
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
You do realize that once a money order has a bank stamp on the back that's it, right? It goes to that bank, you can't deposit the money order anywhere else than the bank of receipt stamped on the back.

That was true in 1963, and it is true now.
I’m not really sure what you are trying to say here. Keen to explain?
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, 09:06 PM   #84
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,078
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
I’m not really sure what you are trying to say here. Keen to explain?
The money order is legitimate.
__________________
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, 09:10 PM   #85
traxy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 460
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Planted or manipulating him to hold it, leaving the prints.
You have proof of this, right?

Of course you don't. Ignored.


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Oswald himself said that it was a fabrication. That his head had been superimposed on another guys body and that he could prove it.
Funny you should mention that. The photographic panel of the HSCA looked into that very thing. You know, the report I've linked you to a half a dozen times now.

Guess what they found?

The photos are legit, untouched originals. They found a negative of one of the photos in the Oswald's possessions, and it was matched to the Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera to the exclusion of all other cameras. Microscopic abrasions and scratches on the negative proved it.

If you had read the report I've linked, you'd know this already.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Hand writings are easy to fake.
Do you have any evicence the handwriting was faked?

Of course you don't. Ignored.

Look at where we are. Right back where we started. A photograph authenticated by a panel of unimpeachable experts as legitimate, showing Lee Harvey Oswald posing with the weapon that killed JFK, a photo he graciously signed for a friend as attested by a panel of handwriting experts.
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, 09:31 PM   #86
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,513
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Yes, but the answer is to a question I did not make.
You asked what the purpose of the recommendation is, and I told you what its purpose is. All you are doing now is what you have been doing for as long as you have been on this forum, and that is playing stupid little word games as you try to avoid acknowledging the answers you are given because you don't like them - and the reason you don't like than is because they don't fit into your fantasy world.

So, for the sake of clarity, I will explain this to you again

The purpose of this recommendation is twofold

#1. To indicate to the Federal Reserve (hereinafter called "the Fed) that the PMO has been received by the correct payee, and that the correct payee and been paid, and

#2. To allow the Fed to trace a possible fraudulent document back through the banking system to its source.

In order to accomplish #1 above, all that is required is some kind of stamp to indicate that the payee has received his money.
a. If the payee presents himself personally to be paid out in cash, then they must show identification to prove they are the boda-fide payee, and if the person at the counter is satisfied with the ID, then they will endorse the PMO with the paying authority's stamp. If the paying authority is a bank, then that stamp will be the official stamp of the bank. If the paying authority is a branch of the USPS, that stamp will be the official stamp of that branch of the USPS. If the paying authority is convenience store, a grocery store, a general store or some other authorised check-cashing location, it will be stamp of that paying authority

b. If the payee is a company or a retail organisation, and they bank the PMO into their business account, then it will be endorsed with the stamp of that organisation, and then processed along with all the cash, cheques, other money orders and credit union transaction documents in that banking bundle. No further endorsement by the bank ares required, because the business' own endorsement stamp is all that is needed. The Federal regulation say it best... "The act of sending or delivering a cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however, be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty(sic) of all prior endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is incorporated in the sending bank’s endorsement."
Simply put, this means two things

i. The very fact that The First National Bank sent the Fed the PMO is deemed to "constitute a guarantee", and

ii. The Klein's endorsement stamp was acceptable as a "prior endorsement" by the fact that it was present when the item was sent.
In order to accomplish #2 above, all that is required is some kind of stamp to on the document to allow the Fed to trace it back to its origin.

In the case of a cashed PMO, the stamp allows it to be traced back to the bank, USPS branch, convenience store, general store, check cashing location or other paying authority who paid out the payee, and

In the case of a banked PMO, the stamp allows it to be traced back to the company that banked it into their account, and the bank that accepted it.

Now, I'm not playing your stupid game any more. If you keep asking this question (a question you now KNOW the answer to) then what you read above will simply be copied and pasted as the answer.
__________________
► God does not exist!
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah

Last edited by smartcooky; 9th June 2018 at 09:33 PM.
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, 09:49 PM   #87
manifesto
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,876
Originally Posted by traxy View Post
You have proof of this, right?

Of course you don't. Ignored.
No. My purpose is to show you that your evidence is not proof.

Quote:
Funny you should mention that. The photographic panel of the HSCA looked into that very thing. You know, the report I've linked you to a half a dozen times now.

Guess what they found?

The photos are legit, untouched originals. They found a negative of one of the photos in the Oswald's possessions, and it was matched to the Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera to the exclusion of all other cameras. Microscopic abrasions and scratches on the negative proved it.

If you had read the report I've linked, you'd know this already.
Yes I do, but I do not draw the same conclusions that you do. The authenticity of the photos and the rest you are mentioning is to this day highly contested by experts on both sides of the arguments. I’ll stop with that since I do not have the time to get bogged down in another discussion at the moment.

In short, photographs and other documents are often relatively easy to fake and are therefore NOT per definition proof of anything. It has to be weighed against the sum of ALL evidence before making any conclusions.

1. I’m open to the possibility that it is the real Oswald in the photos holding the alleged murder weapon in his hand. But I highly doubt it.

2. IF it is Oswald it is NOT proof of him shooting JFK. He could have had the photos taken for reasons not known, and borrowed it and the pistol and the clothes from the people framing him as a patsy.

3. I’m open to the possibility that it is a forgery, and I’m not convinced of the conclusions made by neither the HSCA experts or anyone else.

I know one thing, however. It was this photo more than anything else that convicted Oswald as the assassin of JFK in the public eye, weeks after the event. That is called, perception management, big business in the US then and even more so, today.

Quote:
Do you have any evicence the handwriting was faked?

Of course you don't. Ignored.
Same here. My purpose is to show that handwriting is easy to fake and therefore not proof of anything.

Quote:
Look at where we are. Right back where we started. A photograph authenticated by a panel of unimpeachable experts as legitimate, showing Lee Harvey Oswald posing with the weapon that killed JFK, a photo he graciously signed for a friend as attested by a panel of handwriting experts.
Could easily have been faked = not in any way conclusive.

The fact that a panel of experts couldn’t find any proof of such fake is not proof of no fake.

Back to the alleged Hidell PMO and what the absense of any bank endorsement stamps prominent on both sides, says about its authenticity.

If it can be shown that:

1. The PMO have NOT been processed in the way necessary for a purchase to go through, Oswald did not purchase the alleged murder weapon and therefore didn’t own it.

2. If the PMO is invalid, someone must have fabricated it in order to frame Oswald for the assassination of JFK. Game over for Lone Nutters.

That is, the issue of the ”Back Yard Photo” becomes mute and pure academic, IF the PMO can be shown to be invalid = fabricated = proof of conspiracy to frame Oswald for the assassination of JFK.
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, 09:54 PM   #88
manifesto
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,876
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
The money order is legitimate.
Yes, suspected that this was your conclusion, but how do you come to this conclusion from this?
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
You do realize that once a money order has a bank stamp on the back that's it, right? It goes to that bank, you can't deposit the money order anywhere else than the bank of receipt stamped on the back.

That was true in 1963, and it is true now.
Keen to explain?
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, 09:56 PM   #89
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 854
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
But you claim the authority to interpret it?

1960. But you still claim to know what it all means?

Wow. That is a tautology if there ever was one.

Yes, but why was it ”desirable”? What was the reason for making the ”recommendation”? What was its purpose?

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?

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?

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?

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?
These are the statements from just two of your posts.

Hank answered, thusly
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.

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
And then you followed by this wall of text
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
But you claim the authority to interpret it?

1960. But you still claim to know what it all means?

Wow. That is a tautology if there ever was one.

Yes, but why was it ”desirable”? What was the reason for making the ”recommendation”? What was its purpose?

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?

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?

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?
Hank has answered and you continue with the same questions.
No one on this board can give you reasons why the regulation was written in the manner in which it was, quit asking that question.
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, 10:05 PM   #90
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 854
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No. My purpose is to show you that your evidence is not proof.

Yes I do, but I do not draw the same conclusions that you do. The authenticity of the photos and the rest you are mentioning is to this day highly contested by experts on both sides of the arguments. I’ll stop with that since I do not have the time to get bogged down in another discussion at the moment.

In short, photographs and other documents are often relatively easy to fake and are therefore NOT per definition proof of anything. It has to be weighed against the sum of ALL evidence before making any conclusions.

1. I’m open to the possibility that it is the real Oswald in the photos holding the alleged murder weapon in his hand. But I highly doubt it.

2. IF it is Oswald it is NOT proof of him shooting JFK. He could have had the photos taken for reasons not known, and borrowed it and the pistol and the clothes from the people framing him as a patsy.

3. I’m open to the possibility that it is a forgery, and I’m not convinced of the conclusions made by neither the HSCA experts or anyone else.

I know one thing, however. It was this photo more than anything else that convicted Oswald as the assassin of JFK in the public eye, weeks after the event. That is called, perception management, big business in the US then and even more so, today.

Same here. My purpose is to show that handwriting is easy to fake and therefore not proof of anything.

Could easily have been faked = not in any way conclusive.

The fact that a panel of experts couldn’t find any proof of such fake is not proof of no fake.

Back to the alleged Hidell PMO and what the absense of any bank endorsement stamps prominent on both sides, says about its authenticity.

If it can be shown that:

1. The PMO have NOT been processed in the way necessary for a purchase to go through, Oswald did not purchase the alleged murder weapon and therefore didn’t own it.

2. If the PMO is invalid, someone must have fabricated it in order to frame Oswald for the assassination of JFK. Game over for Lone Nutters.

That is, the issue of the ”Back Yard Photo” becomes mute and pure academic, IF the PMO can be shown to be invalid = fabricated = proof of conspiracy to frame Oswald for the assassination of JFK.
If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass every time he jumped.
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, 10:15 PM   #91
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,078
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No. My purpose is to show you that your evidence is not proof.
And yet it is proof.

Quote:
Yes I do, but I do not draw the same conclusions that you do. The authenticity of the photos and the rest you are mentioning is to this day highly contested by experts on both sides of the arguments.
Only contested by the desperate CTists.

Quote:
I’ll stop with that since I do not have the time to get bogged down in another discussion at the moment.
What you really mean is you'll lose this argument too.

Quote:
In short, photographs and other documents are often relatively easy to fake and are therefore NOT per definition proof of anything. It has to be weighed against the sum of ALL evidence before making any conclusions.
Not easy to fake. No conspiracy took place. ALL of the evidence says Oswald did it alone.

Quote:
1. I’m open to the possibility that it is the real Oswald in the photos holding the alleged murder weapon in his hand. But I highly doubt it.
It is him. And both murder weapons are in the photographs

Quote:
2. IF it is Oswald it is NOT proof of him shooting JFK. He could have had the photos taken for reasons not known, and borrowed it and the pistol and the clothes from the people framing him as a patsy.
No frame job. Those are his clothes. He moved to New Orleans and back between the time he BOUGHT the rifle, took these pictures, and returned to Dallas to kill the President. Clothes likely got lost during the move in either direction

Quote:
3. I’m open to the possibility that it is a forgery, and I’m not convinced of the conclusions made by neither the HSCA experts or anyone else.
Big shock. You have a problem with the facts.

Quote:
I know one thing, however. It was this photo more than anything else that convicted Oswald as the assassin of JFK in the public eye, weeks after the event. That is called, perception management, big business in the US then and even more so, today.
The photos, the rifle, the ballistics convicted him.

Quote:
Same here. My purpose is to show that handwriting is easy to fake and therefore not proof of anything.
You've failed. He bought the rifle, and signed for it.

Quote:
Could easily have been faked = not in any way conclusive.
Uh huh...and you have yet to prove it was faked, and no, it's not easily faked.

Quote:
The fact that a panel of experts couldn’t find any proof of such fake is not proof of no fake.
It is, that's how the whole "experts" thing works

Quote:
Back to the alleged Hidell PMO and what the absense of any bank endorsement stamps prominent on both sides, says about its authenticity.
When you were in the US in 1963, how did they process your money order? You might notice that nobody here is going to make a claim based on 1963 Swedish postal and banking regulations

Quote:
If it can be shown that:

1. The PMO have NOT been processed in the way necessary for a purchase to go through, Oswald did not purchase the alleged murder weapon and therefore didn’t own it.

2. If the PMO is invalid, someone must have fabricated it in order to frame Oswald for the assassination of JFK. Game over for Lone Nutters.
And yet in 55 years the evidence holds up

Quote:
That is, the issue of the ”Back Yard Photo” becomes mute and pure academic, IF the PMO can be shown to be invalid = fabricated = proof of conspiracy to frame Oswald for the assassination of JFK.
Same old conspiracy tune...

[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, 10:30 PM   #92
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,727
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?
OK, one at a time.

1. The regulation literally says "should". That is aspirational, not mandated. That is both the English meaning of the word and the legal meaning of the word.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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, 10:32 PM   #93
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,727
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?
2. The meaning of the regulation is that it is prefered but not mandatory.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 10th June 2018, 04:28 AM   #94
Major Major
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 269
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No. My purpose is to show you that your evidence is not proof.

<snip>
Juror Number Eight at full force. Just because you have an alternative explanation doesn't mean that said explanation is right.

As everyone else on this thread has been patiently telling you, you have to provide proof to support your alternative explanation.

More than adequate proof has been given that the picture is real.

Are you saying that Unknown Friend came by one day with a rifle and pistol and said, "Hey, Lee, let Mariana take some pictures of you with these so you can show what a dedicated revolutionary you are."? And poor dumb LHO said, "Why sure, Unknown Friend, whatever you say."?

Major Major 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 10th June 2018, 06:15 AM   #95
manifesto
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,876
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
2. The meaning of the regulation is that it is prefered but not mandatory.
Yes, but why is it ”prefered”?
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 10th June 2018, 06:29 AM   #96
manifesto
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,876
Originally Posted by Major Major View Post
Juror Number Eight at full force. Just because you have an alternative explanation doesn't mean that said explanation is right.
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

Again, my point is that the evidence is not proof since there are other possible and plausible alternative explanations.

Quote:
As everyone else on this thread has been patiently telling you, you have to provide proof to support your alternative explanation.
Only if I claim that said alternative explanation is, proof. I do not claim this.

Quote:
More than adequate proof has been given that the picture is real.
No. Some experts say its real, others say it is fake. That is enough at the moment. Maybe I have time in the future to discuss the minutiae but at the moment I’m in a discussion on the authenticity of the alleged Hidell PMO.

Quote:
Are you saying that Unknown Friend came by one day with a rifle and pistol and said, "Hey, Lee, let Mariana take some pictures of you with these so you can show what a dedicated revolutionary you are."? And poor dumb LHO said, "Why sure, Unknown Friend, whatever you say."?

Something like that, yes.

1. The photos are fake.

2. The photos was taken on the initiative of Oswald where he borrowed the guns and clothes in order to bolster his ’legend’ as a Castro sympathiser and commie rebel and the plotters used the photos to frame him after the assassination.

3. The photos was taken on the initiative of his handler with the overt purpose to bolster his commie rebel-legend, but with covert purpose to frame him as the patsy to the upcomming assassination.

Ergo. The photos are far from evidence/proof of Oswald assassinating JFK.

Last edited by zooterkin; 11th June 2018 at 10:39 AM.
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 10th June 2018, 06:32 AM   #97
manifesto
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,876
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
OK, one at a time.

1. The regulation literally says "should". That is aspirational, not mandated. That is both the English meaning of the word and the legal meaning of the word.
The ordinary meaning in English is ”obligation”.
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 10th June 2018, 06:34 AM   #98
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,727
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Yes, but why is it ”prefered”?
Would you "prefer" to be rich or poor?

If you can't figure out basic language, there is no hope for you. Let alone "solving" the JFK murder mystery that you have constructed out of whole cloth.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 10th June 2018, 06:40 AM   #99
manifesto
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,876
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Would you "prefer" to be rich or poor?
Exactly my point.

- ”If you want to be secure of your PMO being correctly processed (i.e. not become poor) you ’should’ do this and that in order to avoid taking that risk”.

Quote:
If you can't figure out basic language, there is no hope for you. Let alone "solving" the JFK murder mystery that you have constructed out of whole cloth.
Ditto.

Last edited by manifesto; 10th June 2018 at 06:42 AM.
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 10th June 2018, 06:49 AM   #100
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,502
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No. My purpose is to show you that your evidence is not proof.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Yes, suspected that this was your conclusion, but how do you come to this conclusion from this? Keen to explain?


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Yes I do, but I do not draw the same conclusions that you do. The authenticity of the photos and the rest you are mentioning is to this day highly contested by experts on both sides of the arguments. I’ll stop with that since I do not have the time to get bogged down in another discussion at the moment.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Name them and cite relevant parts of their testimonies.


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
In short, photographs and other documents are often relatively easy to fake and are therefore NOT per definition proof of anything. It has to be weighed against the sum of ALL evidence before making any conclusions.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
I’m not a mind reader AND again, it’s not my place to figure out on what ’evidence’ you are making a claim. Only you can know that. Only you can do that. That is your place.


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
1. I’m open to the possibility that it is the real Oswald in the photos holding the alleged murder weapon in his hand. But I highly doubt it.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Do you have any new evidence you would like to provide or are you just waiting time and space, aserting religionsly contrived dogma?


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
2. IF it is Oswald it is NOT proof of him shooting JFK. He could have had the photos taken for reasons not known, and borrowed it and the pistol and the clothes from the people framing him as a patsy.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Well, how about some evidence?


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
3. I’m open to the possibility that it is a forgery, and I’m not convinced of the conclusions made by neither the HSCA experts or anyone else.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Do you have any new evidence you would like to provide or are you just waiting time and space, aserting religionsly contrived dogma?


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
I know one thing, however. It was this photo more than anything else that convicted Oswald as the assassin of JFK in the public eye, weeks after the event. That is called, perception management, big business in the US then and even more so, today.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Try to make an argument which stands up to scrutiny. I neither shall or can do this for you. To demand this from me is madness. It is plain crazy.

Why don’t you get this? What is missing in your cognitive faculties?

IT IS NOT YOUR OPPONENT WHO SHALL FIND AND PRESENT SUPPORT FOR YOUR CLAIMS. IT IS YOU WHO HAVE TO DO THIS. IF NOT, YOUR CLAIM IS UNSUBSTANTIATED AND REMAINS MINDLESS BABBLEING UNTIL YOU DO. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Same here. My purpose is to show that handwriting is easy to fake and therefore not proof of anything. Could easily have been faked = not in any way conclusive.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Is it? Explain how that was accomplished and by whom. Spell it out in a comprehensive fashion, easy to follow.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
The fact that a panel of experts couldn’t find any proof of such fake is not proof of no fake.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Do you have any new evidence you would like to provide or are you just waiting time and space, aserting religionsly contrived dogma?


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Back to the alleged Hidell PMO and what the absense of any bank endorsement stamps prominent on both sides, says about its authenticity.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
You are the one making the claims above, you are the one who need to substantiate them with supporting evidence. Do it.


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
If it can be shown that:
1. The PMO have NOT been processed in the way necessary for a purchase to go through, Oswald did not purchase the alleged murder weapon and therefore didn’t own it.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Do you have any new evidence you would like to provide or are you just waiting time and space, aserting religionsly contrived dogma?


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
2. If the PMO is invalid, someone must have fabricated it in order to frame Oswald for the assassination of JFK. Game over for Lone Nutters.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Why do you never respond to my questions? Always changing the subject, never following through with substance.


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
That is, the issue of the ”Back Yard Photo” becomes mute and pure academic, IF the PMO can be shown to be invalid = fabricated = proof of conspiracy to frame Oswald for the assassination of JFK.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
It doesn’t matter where you store your evidence, you have to provide the source, cite the evidence and argue for its veracity.
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; 10th June 2018 at 07:28 AM.
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 10th June 2018, 06:58 AM   #101
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,502
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Yes, but why is it ”prefered”?
Asked and answered. Repeating the question after an answer has been given is poor argument. Rebut the answer, if you can. Or acknowledge you can't, and admit your argument has issues.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3&postcount=68

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0&postcount=86

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 10th June 2018, 07:13 AM   #102
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,502
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Again, my point is that the evidence is not proof since there are other possible and plausible alternative explanations.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Yes, suspected that this was your conclusion, but how do you come to this conclusion...? Keen to explain?
The key word in the above is PLAUSIBLE. You have no plausible alternatives that you can support with evidence and reasoned argument.


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No. Some experts say its real, others say it is fake. That is enough at the moment. Maybe I have time in the future to discuss the minutiae but at the moment I’m in a discussion on the authenticity of the alleged Hidell PMO.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Name them and cite relevant parts of their testimonies.
Name one expert who examined the first-generation photographic materials who determined they were fake.


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
1. The photos are fake.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Try to make an argument which stands up to scrutiny. I neither shall or can do this for you. To demand this from me is madness. It is plain crazy.

Why don’t you get this? What is missing in your cognitive faculties?

IT IS NOT YOUR OPPONENT WHO SHALL FIND AND PRESENT SUPPORT FOR YOUR CLAIMS. IT IS YOU WHO HAVE TO DO THIS. IF NOT, YOUR CLAIM IS UNSUBSTANTIATED AND REMAINS MINDLESS BABBLEING UNTIL YOU DO. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
Anyone can claim anything. It's a lot harder to find evidence to support those bogus claims. That's where you fail. Fail.


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
2. The photos was taken on the initiative of Oswald where he borrowed the guns and clothes in order to bolster his ’legend’ as a Castro sympathiser and commie rebel and the plotters used the photos to frame him after the assassination.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Yes, suspected that this was your conclusion, but how do you come to this conclusion...?
Why would he have to borrow the gun and the clothes? The gun was shipped to his PO Box. You haven't established the clothes were not his in March of 1963.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
3. The photos was taken on the initiative of his handler with the overt purpose to bolster his commie rebel-legend, but with covert purpose to frame him as the patsy to the upcomming assassination.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Well, how about some evidence?
Can you even make a lick of sense? How could photos taken in March frame him for an assassination in November when JFK's plans to visit Dallas weren't in the offing yet? When Oswald wasn't working in the Depository yet?


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
4. The photos were taken on the initiative of Oswald by his wife Marina exactly as she testified and exactly as every expert who examined the first-generation photographic materials testified and exactly as all the other evidence (like the Klein's paperwork, like Oswald's handwriting on the money order and on one photo, like his fingerprints on the rifle) establishes.
Oh, that's right. You didn't list this one. In other words, you deliberately left off your list of possibilities the one explanation that has the most support and is the most reasonable. Why is that? Doesn't this make your list a logical fallacy of a false dilemma? Is that the fairest and most reasonable way to treat the subject? Or are you ignoring any contrary evidence just like all conspiracy theorist authors do?


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Ergo. The photos are far from evidence/proof of Oswald assassinating JFK.
No own has suggested that. That's the LOGICAL FALLACY of a straw man argument. The photos are additional evidence of the rifle being ordered, and paid for, and purchased and possessed by Oswald after being shipped to his PO Box.
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; 10th June 2018 at 07:52 AM.
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 10th June 2018, 07:33 AM   #103
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,502
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No one has claimed it means ”must” in a legal sense.

The issue is now why this ”recommendation” was made in the federal regulations. What was its purpose? What was the benefits if followed? The possible consequenses if NOT followed?

Do you know?
Wait, what?

Are you acknowledging there is no requirement to have the bank stamps now?

If you are acknowledging that, then we're done. The Money Order you've been quibbling about for over ten pages is legitimate, as far as we can tell, because it has everything required of it.

Now you just asking why the requirements and why the recommendations? That's moving the goalposts. That's another LOGICAL FALLACY by you. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...-the-Goalposts
Description: Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied refusing to concede or accept the opponent’s argument.
You write: "The issue is now why this ”recommendation” was made in the federal regulations."

And that's a totally separate issue unrelated to the assassination whatsoever. It's not germane to the assassination in any sense.

That regulation you're asking about, after all, applied to all postal money orders, not just Oswald's. I suggest you take that issue and your questions concerning it to the 'historical legal regulations' section of this board.

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; 10th June 2018 at 07:51 AM.
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 10th June 2018, 07:57 AM   #104
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,502
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
You are going to get such a spanking for transporting those goalposts across state lines.


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 10th June 2018, 08:01 AM   #105
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,502
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.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
You are the one making the claims above, you are the one who need to substantiate them with supporting evidence. Do it.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
He was innocent.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Yes, suspected that this was your conclusion, but how do you come to this conclusion... Keen to explain?

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
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.
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
What? Is this some kind of threat?
That's the LOGICAL FALLACY of a non sequitur.

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 10th June 2018, 08:42 AM   #106
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,213
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Exactly my point.

- ”If you want to be secure of your PMO being correctly processed (i.e. not become poor) you ’should’ do this and that in order to avoid taking that risk”.
But you do agree that Sandy Larsen was an idiot for conflating "should" and "shall" and then getting other naive CTs to believe it meant something?

Why did Oswald go on to murder Officer Tippit after assassinating JFK and then attempt to murder more officers in the theater with the same revolver? You have fled in panic every time I've asked the question. What are CTs so afraid of? Are typical CT arguments that weak?
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 10th June 2018, 09:19 AM   #107
traxy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 460
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No. My purpose is to show you that your evidence is not proof.

Yes I do, but I do not draw the same conclusions that you do. The authenticity of the photos and the rest you are mentioning is to this day highly contested by experts on both sides of the arguments. I’ll stop with that since I do not have the time to get bogged down in another discussion at the moment.

In short, photographs and other documents are often relatively easy to fake and are therefore NOT per definition proof of anything. It has to be weighed against the sum of ALL evidence before making any conclusions.

1. I’m open to the possibility that it is the real Oswald in the photos holding the alleged murder weapon in his hand. But I highly doubt it.

2. IF it is Oswald it is NOT proof of him shooting JFK. He could have had the photos taken for reasons not known, and borrowed it and the pistol and the clothes from the people framing him as a patsy.

3. I’m open to the possibility that it is a forgery, and I’m not convinced of the conclusions made by neither the HSCA experts or anyone else.

I know one thing, however. It was this photo more than anything else that convicted Oswald as the assassin of JFK in the public eye, weeks after the event. That is called, perception management, big business in the US then and even more so, today.

Same here. My purpose is to show that handwriting is easy to fake and therefore not proof of anything.

Could easily have been faked = not in any way conclusive.

The fact that a panel of experts couldn’t find any proof of such fake is not proof of no fake.

Back to the alleged Hidell PMO and what the absense of any bank endorsement stamps prominent on both sides, says about its authenticity.

If it can be shown that:

1. The PMO have NOT been processed in the way necessary for a purchase to go through, Oswald did not purchase the alleged murder weapon and therefore didn’t own it.

2. If the PMO is invalid, someone must have fabricated it in order to frame Oswald for the assassination of JFK. Game over for Lone Nutters.

That is, the issue of the ”Back Yard Photo” becomes mute and pure academic, IF the PMO can be shown to be invalid = fabricated = proof of conspiracy to frame Oswald for the assassination of JFK.
That was a truly valiant attempt at waving away a damning piece of evicence, but it's not going to work.

The backyard photos have never been seriously challenged as faked, not by anyone with any actual background in photography or photogrammetry. That rules out Jack White, Robert Groden and the other loonies on the Ed forums.

The photos are legitimate images of Lee Harvey Oswald posing with the weapon that murdered JFK in March of 1963, the same month the rifle was shipped to Alek Hidell from Klein's Sporting Goods, one of which he signed the back of. If you want to claim the photos were part of some elaborate setup, you'll need to provide compelling evidence, which you don't have. We already know the circumstances under which the photo was taken thanks to Marina Oswald, and the matching of the negative to the Oswalds camera backs up her version of events.

Now, with the legitimacy of the photo established beyond all doubt, it casts all the other evidence in a new light.

Absent any compelling evidence of fakery, which you don't have, the paper trail connecting Hidell to the rifle is legitimate. The rifle was shipped in March of 63,Oswald possessed it in March of 63.

Absent any evidence of fakery, which you don't have, the prints on the rifle have to be taken as legitimate. We have photographic proof of Oswald possessing and handling the rifle. Of course his prints would be on it.
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 10th June 2018, 09:35 AM   #108
traxy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 460
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
1. The photos are fake.
This possibility has been investigated and found to be without merit. The results of that investigation and the impeccable credentials of the investigators has been provided for you. The photos are not faked.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
2. The photos was taken on the initiative of Oswald where he borrowed the guns and clothes in order to bolster his ’legend’ as a Castro sympathiser and commie rebel and the plotters used the photos to frame him after the assassination.
You have to provide evidence for this explanation to hold any weight. The photo was taken by his wife using their camera, the negative matched to it beyond all doubt by the photographic panel. Also, if this explanation were true, why did Oswald LIE to investigators when confronted with the picture?

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
3. The photos was taken on the initiative of his handler with the overt purpose to bolster his commie rebel-legend, but with covert purpose to frame him as the patsy to the upcomming assassination.
First, provide evidence Oswald had a "commie handler". You don't have it.

Without a shred of evidence to back up your assertions as to what "might" have happened, we're left with taking the picture at face value. Lee Harvey Oswald posing with the weapon that killed JFK.
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 10th June 2018, 10:54 AM   #109
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,502
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
- ”If you want to be secure of your PMO being correctly processed (i.e. not become poor) you ’should’ do this and that in order to avoid taking that risk”.

What risk did the bank run by not putting their stamp on it?

None. The money order has the vendor's name and account number on it. If the money order bounced for being falsified, they knew where they had to go to get their money back.


What risk did the Fed run by accepting it?

None. The money order had the bank name where it entered the Federal Reserve system on it, so the Fed could always go back to the bank where it entered the system and recover from the bank.


What risk did Klein's run by accepting it?

All the risk. That's a cost of doing business. If somebody passes a bad check, or uses counterfeit money, or falsifies a money order, then you hope to catch those if you can, but for those you don't catch, you can only recoup your losses by raising the pricing a couple of cents on everything else.


What risk did Kleins run by refusing it?

Losing business (and repeat business) from not only Oswald but anyone else who used money orders or checks to purchase stuff through the mail. Checks are only backed and secured by the amount of money in the checking account. Postal Money Orders are backed by the Post Office, which at the time was a federal department, not a quasi-public company. Mail Order business was HUGE back then (the Sears catalog alone was over 500 pages) and people purchased plenty of items via mail order. If you don't accept checks and money orders for mail orders, you don't have a money order business (credit cards were in their infancy back then). You turn down money orders because of a few bad apples and you loss a good chunk of your business. And you could always recoup the cost of the bad apples by raising the price by a small amount. So you don't turn down money orders. Klein's didn't turn them down.

Further, Klein's didn't have any say on whether the bank applied a bank stamp, and Klein's was accepting all the risk regardless of what the bank did. Once they accepted it and deposited it (and we saw William Waldman's testimony on this), it is out of their hands. The bank won't need to bother with stamps of their own because the Klein's stamp means they can recover from Klein's if they need to. There's no chance of the bank becoming poor by their failure to put their own stamp on the money order.

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; 10th June 2018 at 11:00 AM.
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 10th June 2018, 11:36 AM   #110
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,411
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post12317577

Quote:
Manifesto said: I’m really doing my very best keeping up with your requests. Nice and easy.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4860

Day eight of no evidence from manifesto

Manifesto is now up to hundreds of claims with no evidence provided.



We can now add to that another howler

Quote:
I’m really doing my very best keeping up with your requests. Nice and easy.
Quote:
Yes, I’m doing my best to keep up with all of you and all of your crap barrage of “requests” for evidence. Promise.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=5237

Quote:
This post will be reposted until the questions are answered to H's satisfaction.
Hans 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 10th June 2018, 11:43 AM   #111
manifesto
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,876
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post











[indent]












Hank
This is a peculiar way of debating practiced by Hank when he knows he has no chanse to win an argument.

Who taught him this? Don’t know, but I suspect it has something to do with his decades of close association whit a certain Mr. McA.....

This is how you end up.
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 10th June 2018, 11:47 AM   #112
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,411
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
This is a peculiar way of debating practiced by Hank when he knows he has no chanse to win an argument.

Who taught him this? Don’t know, but I suspect it has something to do with his decades of close association whit a certain Mr. McA.....

This is how you end up.
Should we follow your method then? That is: Don't cite, whine, demand your personal opinion is fact and lie about providing evidence in the future?

Hans 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 10th June 2018, 11:51 AM   #113
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,411
Manifesto said here:

Quote:
The cover-up was done in the knowledge that no one would check the evidence in a real sense. It had a public relation function, not a real evidential function.

In a court room the defence would have had a massacre on both the witness testimonies and on the alleged technical evidence.

The Warren Commissions function was Public Relations and to White Wash and stamp ”Approved” on the fraudulent investigation performed by the FBI and other corrupt investigative bodies.

Everybody ”knew” that it was a cover-up of a covert coup d’etat but they feard the alternative, so they played along in the ’service of the country’. Or, they belonged to that faction within the American power structure who rejoyced when the ”pinky n-word loving traitor in the White house” got what was coming to him, and gladely took part in the cover-up as ’good American patriots’.

Ask your long time associate John McAdams, he surely knows what kind of sentiment I’m talking about.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=5291

Nope if you had the slightest knowledge of American history you would know that every important assassination in the US history has been obsessed over and volumes and volume of written material created going over ever detail. Again you pretend the conspiracy was done by complete idiots.

Yet in your bizarro world those idiots are beating you and have so for 55 years.

Well done Manifesto.

Your opinion is rejected as childish.
Hans 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 10th June 2018, 11:56 AM   #114
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,213
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Some experts say its real, others say it is fake.
Joke White claimed they were fake and made a fool of himself showing he had about as much knowledge of photogrammetry as the typical CT, which was zero. A previous CT poster in this thread, Robert Prey , showed what an idiot he was by trying to cite Joke "What is this photogrammetry of which you speak" White. Joke White died having never lived down his embarrassment.

Quote:
Ergo. The photos are far from evidence/proof of Oswald assassinating JFK.
Only to a certain subset of people as noted above. To normal human beings with average and above intelligence, they are part of the consilience of evidence against Oswald.

CTs hate consilience but are powerless against it. Just look at your useless flailing.
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 10th June 2018, 12:00 PM   #115
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,213
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
<snip useless flailing about>
Answer the questions you have been asked. You don't have to run away like a typical CT your whole life.
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 10th June 2018, 12:05 PM   #116
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,411
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Answer the questions you have been asked. You don't have to run away like a typical CT your whole life.
No I think he does. I suspect he's had enough experience to know that showing the evidence undermines what he says.

I also sense he is well aware that all he can do now is pretend his opinions are facts and constantly run from the real facts.

We are seeing a CT in his terminal expression of his religious belief. All he has left our his unsupported beliefs in the CT and everything around him is faked, everything.
Hans 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 10th June 2018, 12:16 PM   #117
manifesto
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,876
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
What risk did the bank run by not putting their stamp on it?

None. The money order has the vendor's name and account number on it. If the money order bounced for being falsified, they knew where they had to go to get their money back.
So, why the ”recommendation” of having the stamps prominently on both sides of the PMO if completely superfluous?

Aesthetics?


Quote:
What risk did the Fed run by accepting it?

None. The money order had the bank name where it entered the Federal Reserve system on it, so the Fed could always go back to the bank where it entered the system and recover from the bank.
So, why the ”recommendation” of having the stamps prominently on both sides of the PMO if completely superfluous?

Aesthetics?

This is how John Armstrong describes the reasons that the stamps ”should” be on PMO’s, 1963.
”Special punch-proof machines were developed and installed at each of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks and branches for handling the new money orders. Researchers should remember that during the 1950's and early 1960's (prior to April, 1962) the only punched holes that appeared on postal money orders, at the time of purchase, were those that identified the serial number of the money order (by computer code).

After a postal money order (or check, bank draft, etc.) was deposited to a bank, it was date stamped by the bank and credited to the customer's account. The endorsed money order (check, draft, etc.), stamped with the bank's ABA number, was then sent to a Federal Reserve Bank (or Branch) within the deposit bank's district. All postal money orders had to be date stamped/endorsed by the bank receiving the deposit. Without the endorsement, the Federal Reserve would have no way of knowing to which bank the money order was to be credited.

At the Federal Reserve Bank a second set of punched holes was stamped into each Postal Money order. In one operation the new machines (IBM 808 proof machines) would list the amount of the money order on paper tapes, punch (by machine code) the ink-printed/stamped amount paid for the money order as shown on the front side, and automatically sort the money orders according to the twelve Post Office regional accounting offices. After crediting each bank within their district for the money orders presented, the Federal Reserve bank returned the money order(s) to the regional postal accounting office (there were 12 offices nationwide). For this service (machine punching all US Postal Money orders), the Postal Department paid the Federal Reserve banks $600,000 yearly.


http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/PMO/Money_Orders.html
That is, if the actors involved expected to have a secured processing of the PMO, this is what the federal regulation says they ”should” do.

Kleins deposited thousands of PMO’s to its bank on a daily basis, but you are claiming the bank deposited all those PMO’s to a Federal Reserve Bank without endorsing them?

And what about the Federal Reserve Bank’s and their endorsements?

There is NO trace on the Hidell PMO of it having been duly processed in any way by any bank. How do you distinguish processed endorsed PMO’s from PMO’s that aren’t so, without a trace on neither of them of having been duly processed?

Guessing?

Last edited by manifesto; 10th June 2018 at 12:19 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 10th June 2018, 12:24 PM   #118
manifesto
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,876
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Should we follow your method then? That is: Don't cite, whine, demand your personal opinion is fact and lie about providing evidence in the future?

If you are talking of your carefully orchestrated barrage of crap thrown at me from day one, yes you should follow my example.

Responde to those posts that have some semblance of effort to provide substance first, and take it from there.

Have YOU, Hans, produced one single post containing a single trace of substance in your attacks on me?

One?

Show me.
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 10th June 2018, 12:26 PM   #119
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,213
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
<snip useless running away>
You don't have to run like a typical CTist your whole life. Answer the questions you were asked.
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 10th June 2018, 12:40 PM   #120
manifesto
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,876
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
You don't have to run like a typical CTist your whole life. Answer the questions you were asked.
I have asked the admin/mod multiple times how it can be that you are allowed to stalk and harass me with nonsense replies and little blue idiot smileys, day in and night out page after page since I began posting in the thread, but no answer.

One wonder why this is so.

Do you know, RoboTimbo?

Last edited by manifesto; 10th June 2018 at 12:41 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
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 04:47 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.