JFK Conspiracy Theories VII: Late November back in '63... - Page 6

smartcooky · 11th June 2018, 11:22 PM

Originally Posted by manifesto

So, why dispute it?

Where did I dispute it?

Cite, Explain

Originally Posted by manifesto

There is, but I rather settle the issue with the fake Hidell PMO before continuing with exactly how it was faked and by whom.

One step at a time.

Translation: You don't have the answer

Originally Posted by manifesto

He asked who was in charge of the murder investigation. I answered.

The FBI.

► I asked who disappeared the bullets supposedly fired at JFK by the alleged multiple shooters

► You said "Elements within the CIA planned and organized the assassination" "they controlled the technical evidence."

► Axxman300 said "How? We need details, names, locations, etc "

► You replied https://www.fbi.gov/

First, you started with the CIA then gave the FBI as your answer. It seems that you can't even get your alphabet soup straight, let alone your own story... only liars can't keep their stories straight.

Second, simply posting a link is not an answer when you are asked for names and locations. If you can't provide names and locations when asked, retract the claim.

Originally Posted by manifesto

Here they are, summarized by Gary L. Aguilar, MD.

- The Parkland doctors and nurses

- The agents from FBI and Secret Service

- The medical personel at Bethesda

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

No, YOU provide the evidence yourself. We don't do your research for you.

Originally Posted by manifesto

WC testimony of Lt. Carl Day:

Mr. BELIN. Handing you what has been marked "Exhibit 545," I will ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. DAY. This is one of the hulls in the envelope which I opened at 10 o'clock. It has my name written on the end of it.
Mr. BELIN. When you say, on the end of it, where on the end of it?
Mr. DAY. On the small end where the slug would go.
Mr. BELIN. And it has "Day" on it?
Mr. DAY. Scratched on there; yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. With what instrument did you scratch it on?
Mr. DAY. A diamond point pencil.

(1 DAY)

Mr. BELIN. I believe you said that you examined the three shells today?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Now, I am going to ask you to state if you know what Commission Exhibit 543 is?
Mr. DAY. That is a hull that does not have my marking on it.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not this was one of the hulls that was found at the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. DAY. I think it is.
Mr. BELIN. What makes you think it is?
Mr. DAY. It has the initials "G. D." on it, which is George Doughty, the captain that I worked under.

(1 GD)

Mr. BELIN. Now, handing you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 544, I will ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. DAY. This is the second hull that was in the envelope when I marked the two hulls that night on November 22.
Mr. BELIN. I have now marked this envelope, which was formerly a part of Commission Exhibits 543 and 544 with a separate Commission Exhibit No. 717, and I believe you testify now that Commission Exhibit 544 was the other shell that was in the envelope which has now been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 717.
Mr. DAY. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Does that cartridge case, Exhibit 544, have your name on it again?
Mr. DAY. It has my name on the small end where the slug would go into the shell.

(1 DAY)

That is: 2 shells with DAY engraved and 1 with, GD.

But, Lt. Day changes his mind again, in spite of having carefully studied the three shells in evidence.

In a correction to his testimony he writes this in a sworn affidavit to WC:

Close examination with a magnifying glass under a good light disclosed that my name "Day" was on all three hulls, at the small end. Also GD for Captain George Doughty was on two of them. Commission numbers 543 and 544 were the first two sent to Washington on November 22, 1963. They have Doughty's initials where he marked the hulls as they were released to Vince Drain at 11:45 P.M. on November 22, 1963 by Doughty and Day. The third hull, commission number 545, does not have Doughty's mark, but is plainly marked "Day". In Washington, I had numbers 543 and 545 switched because I didn't find my name on number 543.

That makes it: all 3 shells with DAY engraved and 2 shells also with GD on them.

So, where are these 3 + 2 = initials on the three shells in evidence? NARA couldn’t find them.

Can you? http://www.krusch.com/jfk/Shells_National_Archives.zip

No I can't find them, and I'm not surprised. Those shells are almost 50 years old (at the time they were photographed), and even if they were properly stored, the brass surface will have deteriorated a lot

Originally Posted by manifesto

I wrote:

Well, they didn’t. They used the same people involved in the plans and efforts to assassinate Castro & co.

Axxman300 replied:

RFK was in on it?

Axxman300 implies that RFK was involved in the efforts to assassinate Castro.

No he does not.

You clearly do not understand the implications of the interrogative in the English language. The question mark means he is asking you, not that he is making claim.

Originally Posted by manifesto

Another creepy laughter

What's creepy about laughing at stupidity

Originally Posted by manifesto

Program to recruit foreign criminal assets for various illegal activities including burglary, wire taps, strong arm work and thefts in support of ZR code breaking work. Later used by William Harvey as a cover for an Executive Action assassinations program.

https://www.maryferrell.org/php/cryptdb.php?id=ZRRIFLE

In November 1961 William Harvey was ordered to activate an assassination plot against Fidel Castro. This became part of what became known as the ZR/RIFLE project. Harvey decided to transfer David Sanchez Morales from Mexico City to the JM WAVE station. Johnny Roselli was also recruited into the project.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKzrrifle.htm

That's as may be, but you have yet to show any evidence whatsoever that it has anything to do with the JFK assassination

Originally Posted by manifesto

Mark Wyatt worked for the CIA in Rome under William Harvey, who had been removed from the Cuba effort by JFK/RFK after sending speedboats with Cuban exiles in to Cuba in the middle of the Missile-crisis almost causing WWIII and nuclear armageddon.

According to Wyatts children he allways talked about Harvey in connection with the JFK assassination. Hours after the news of JFK’s death, Harvey had blurted out offensive remarks in front of Wyatt showing he had to have had foreknowledge of the assassination.

Wyatts fixation and anguish over what he knew of the Harvey connection prompted his children to try to persuade him to testify to the HSCA, but he couldn’t betray the CIA who he was still loyal to and believed in.

When in 1998 interviewed by the French investigative journalist, Fabrizio Calvi, about the CIA’s connections to Operation Gladio, Wyatt suddenly said out of the blue:

”You know, I always wondered what Bill Harvey was doing in Dallas in November 1963,”

After this shocker Wyatt told him how he had bumped in to Harvey on a plane to Dallas sometime before the assassination and asked him why he was going there. Harvey had answered vaugely:

“I’m here to see what’s happening.”

(Talbot, David: The Devils Chessboard)

David Talbot has since tried to FOIA Bill Haveys travel vouchers from that period in time from the CIA, but so far no show.

Also HSCA investigator Dan Hardway tried to get hold of Harveys travel vouchers and security files 1978, but got stone walled by the CIA in spite of his Congressional mandate to investigate the assassination of JFK.

Harvey was one of the prime suspects in the assassination according to Hardway.

Maybe Harveys widow, ex CIA officer C.G. Harvey, should tell you her self?

”They were really scum”: https://youtu.be/iabXbtn5mUE

(1:46) https://youtu.be/WzOs-jTOo-Q

[/quote]

All interesting, but all ultimately irrelevant.

People's opinions have no value as evidence (unless they are expert witnesses in a specialist subject or profession)!

What people recall other people saying is called "hearsay", and it has no value as evidence.

Oh, and you are quoting David Talbot.... another CT loon. The mad fantasies of CT loons have no value as evidence.

smartcooky · 11th June 2018, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by manifesto

What ”point” did I miss?

I suggest you google "Secret Service"

manifesto · 11th June 2018, 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I suggest you google "Secret Service"

What ”point” did I miss?

smartcooky · 11th June 2018, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by manifesto

What ”point” did I miss?

If you aren't able to work it out, I'm not explaining it to you

I don't have time to deal with it now

More later

(see how annoying that is?)

manifesto · 11th June 2018, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

If you aren't able to work it out, I'm not explaining it to you

I don't have time to deal with it now

More later

(see how annoying that is?)

Take your time, ”smartcooky”, I can wait for Axxmans ”point”.

If there is any, that is. Probably not.

RoboTimbo · 12th June 2018, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by manifesto

What documents.?

<snip TLDR>

I thought you

claimed to be well-read on the subject. LOL.

What is your comprehensive alternative hypothesis for who assassinated JFK?

traxy · 12th June 2018, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by Wolrab

Fringe reset! The HSCA acoustic evidence has been thoroughly and completely debunked. Multiple times. That you don't accept it is your problem.

Agreed. That dead horse has been well and truly beaten into the ground. No need to revisit.

Whip · 12th June 2018, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by traxy

Agreed. That dead horse has been well and truly beaten into the ground. No need to revisit.

if you listen close enough, you can hear it being whacked 4 or 5 times. allegedly

bknight · 12th June 2018, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by traxy

Agreed. That dead horse has been well and truly beaten into the ground. No need to revisit.

I agree with the HSCA acoustic presentation has been beaten down, however our adversary doesn't understand how it was debunked and will therefore submit the claim that it is still valid.

RoboTimbo · 12th June 2018, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by Whip

if you listen close enough, you can hear it being whacked 4 or 5 times. allegedly

Can you prove that horse wasn't shot with a silenced weapon? How do you know that the bloody stick found next to it wasn't planted?

Hans · 12th June 2018, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

Can you prove that horse wasn't shot with a silenced weapon? How do you know that the bloody stick found next to it wasn't planted?

No, no if the stick was planted and its planter was based on the CT view of the CIA's ability to fake evidence the stick would be made of unglued lego's and covered with Heinz tomato sauce and have written on it 'this was NOT put here by the secret conspiracy. We do not live at Central Intelligence Agency, Office of outrageous stupid stuff, Washington, D.C. 20505, (703) 482-0623'.

Hans · 12th June 2018, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by manifesto

It have to wait.

....in other words you ain't doing it

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post12317577

Manifesto said: I’m really doing my very best keeping up with your requests. Nice and easy.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4860

[quote=Hans;12317577]This is day ten of no evidence from manifesto

Manifesto is now up to 83+ 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.

Actually you're not you are justing saying you are. We have another example of your lying on this subject above.

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

manifesto · 12th June 2018, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Here's the 100 claims by Manifesto that he was asked to provide evidence for.

He has yet to support any of them with legitimate evidence.

2 provided = 98 still to be provided. Nice and easy.

Quote:

1 - Evidence?
Originally Posted by manifesto http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4152
- I know that at least two shooters fired at least 5 rifle shots, four from behind the limo and one, the fatal headshot, from in front behind the picket fence on the knoll.

Done: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=189

Quote:

2 - Evidence?
Originally Posted by manifesto
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4152
- That the cover up kicked in as soon the last shot was fired.

Done: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=189

Quote:

- That Oswald did not shoot anyone that day and that he was the patsy he claimed he was.

This is actually another claim that you are claiming that I haven’t provided evidence for. Which I of course have.

1. The HSCA acoustical scientific evidence of the killing headshot comming from in front to the right of the president (knoll) = Oswald allegedly shooting from behind the president = not the alleged killing shot = Oswald innocent of the actual killing.

- Evidence for this are provided here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=189

2. The Hidell PMO that have no bank endorsement stamps that according to the federal regulations should be present = forgery = Oswald didn’t purchase the rifle = Oswald didn’t own the rifle = the alleged murder weapon had no known connection to Oswald + the forgery prove that Oswald was framed by the conspirators as the patsy he said he was:

- Evidence for this is still under current debate. One step at a time.

3. Dallas chief of police, Jessie Curry stating in an interview years after the assassination that:

"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand."

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKcurryJ.htm

To name but a few of the evidence of Oswald being a patsy. There are litterally hundreds and hundreds more. Some of them pointed out and provided evidence for by me and others earlier in the thread. More to come.

Whip · 12th June 2018, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

Can you prove that horse wasn't shot with a silenced weapon? How do you know that the bloody stick found next to it wasn't planted?

I'm sure the stick was left by the FillyBeatingInflictors.

RoboTimbo · 12th June 2018, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by manifesto

1. The HSCA acoustical scientific evidence of the killing headshot comming from in front to the right

Repeating long debunked CT idiocy

doesn't make it any truer.

Quote:

2. The Hidell PMO that have no bank endorsement stamps

Repeating long debunked CT idiocy

doesn't make it any truer.

OKBob · 12th June 2018, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by manifesto

2. The Hidell PMO that have no bank endorsement stamps that according to the federal regulations should be present = forgery

Back in post #5286, I listed a number of things you should research before making anything like this equation. Among my recommendations, I wrote:

Circular No. 4928 was not a part of the "federal regulations," as you have claimed. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) contains regulations that have been proposed by federal agencies, submitted to a notice, publication, and public comment process, and eventually promulgated as rules in the CFR.

Federal Reserve operating circulars, of which No. 4928 was one, were different. They were not put through the regulatory process I just described. Instead, they were issued by Federal Reserve Banks to their participating clearing banks, and the duties they created for banks were contractual in nature, not regulatory in the typical way. Because these circulars were, in effect, banks talking to banks, this explains some of the nonbinding "should," "may," or "banks are urged" language found in No. 4928. This language suggests that the banks were setting goals, aspirational norms, and best practices for members.

If you're genuinely interested in this regulatory aspect, you'll have to come to grips with what I've written above.

The "should" prevents you from going where you want to go with this. It indicates that the practice of complete stamping was not being regularly observed, and that the Federal Reserve Banks desired more consistency. Simply that.

In sum, if the practice was sometimes not observed for perfectly innocuous and innocent reasons, there is no way to deduce that the absence of stamps "= forgery." If you're really interested in this PMO stamp argument, there's much more work for you to do. My forecast is that that work will not lead to a conclusion of official forgery.

HSienzant · 12th June 2018, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by manifesto

2. The Hidell PMO that have no bank endorsement stamps that according to the federal regulations ~~should be present = forgery~~ are optional but recommended = legitimate.

FTFY.

Everyone can see you're just ignoring inconvenient facts that conflict with your beliefs.

Hank

traxy · 12th June 2018, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by manifesto

1. The HSCA acoustical scientific evidence of the killing headshot comming from in front to the right of the president (knoll) = Oswald allegedly shooting from behind the president = not the alleged killing shot = Oswald innocent of the actual killing.

As another poster astutely pointed out, this is an attempted fringe reset. You're circling back around to your first point which has been burned to the ground already.

- The HSCA acoustic evidence has been dismantled by multiple independent studies, which have been provided to you and explained to you in painstaking detail.

- It has been dismantled by the visual record, indicating that HB McLean could not have been where he needed to be.

- It has been dismantled by the testimony of HB McLean and his riding partner Marion Baker.

- The notion of a frontal shot has been dismantled by the entirety of the photographic record comprised of 3 films, one polaroid, the autopsy photographs and the autopsy x-rays. All of these elements have been examined and authenticated by multiple studies which have been provided for you and explained to you in painstaking detail.

Hans · 12th June 2018, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by traxy

As another poster astutely pointed out, this is an attempted fringe reset. You're circling back around to your first point which has been burned to the ground already.

- The HSCA acoustic evidence has been dismantled by multiple independent studies, which have been provided to you and explained to you in painstaking detail.

- It has been dismantled by the visual record, indicating that HB McLean could not have been where he needed to be.

- It has been dismantled by the testimony of HB McLean and his riding partner Marion Baker.

- The notion of a frontal shot has been dismantled by the entirety of the photographic record comprised of 3 films, one polaroid, the autopsy photographs and the autopsy x-rays. All of these elements have been examined and authenticated by multiple studies which have been provided for you and explained to you in painstaking detail.

This guy is pretty boring. Of course his real purpose is something other than discussing the JFK assassination - just repeating old debunk crap works just find for his objective.

manifesto · 12th June 2018, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by traxy

As another poster astutely pointed out, this is an attempted fringe reset. You're circling back around to your first point which has been burned to the ground already.

No, Traxy, you are wrong:

1. My post is a response to ”Hank’s” accusation that I have not provided evidence, explained it and argued for its veracity. Well, ”Hank” was clearly lying in this case, since I did.

2. That said, no, neither you or anyone else have succeded to ”burn to the ground” HSCA’s acoustical investigation + results. Alarmingly many have tried over the years.

I’m prepared to return to this subject when ”Hank’s” little whining-list is done and out with.

Until then, I suggest you read up on your favorite ”debunkings”. So far you have not presented a convincing case.

RoboTimbo · 12th June 2018, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by manifesto

2. That said, no, neither you or anyone else have succeded to ”burn to the ground” HSCA’s acoustical investigation + results.

This is why a CTs

opinion is of zero value. It's just irrational and delusional denial.

HSCA acoustical nonsense - burned to the ground.

manifesto · 12th June 2018, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by HSienzant

FTFY.

Everyone can see you're just ignoring inconvenient facts that conflict with your beliefs.

Hank

The federal regulations states that certain bank endorsing stamps should be prominently present on both sides of the PMO’s but that they shouldn’t.

Hank.

RoboTimbo · 12th June 2018, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by OKBob

Circular No. 4928 was not a part of the "federal regulations," as you have claimed.

Originally Posted by manifesto

The federal regulations states

Irrational and delusional denial.

OKBob · 12th June 2018, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by manifesto

The federal regulations states that certain bank endorsing stamps should be prominently present on both sides of the PMO’s but that they shouldn’t.

You can't keep ignoring what I've written and be credible on this issue, manifesto.

HSienzant · 12th June 2018, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by manifesto

The federal regulations states that certain bank endorsing stamps should be prominently present on both sides of the PMO’s but that they shouldn’t.

Hank.

Straw man argument. Quote what I said, not what you wish to pretend I said.

Hank

manifesto · 12th June 2018, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by OKBob

Back in post #5286, I listed a number of things you should research before making anything like this equation. Among my recommendations, I wrote:

Circular No. 4928 was not a part of the "federal regulations," as you have claimed. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) contains regulations that have been proposed by federal agencies, submitted to a notice, publication, and public comment process, and eventually promulgated as rules in the CFR.

Federal Reserve operating circulars, of which No. 4928 was one, were different. They were not put through the regulatory process I just described. Instead, they were issued by Federal Reserve Banks to their participating clearing banks, and the duties they created for banks were contractual in nature, not regulatory in the typical way. Because these circulars were, in effect, banks talking to banks, this explains some of the nonbinding "should," "may," or "banks are urged" language found in No. 4928. This language suggests that the banks were setting goals, aspirational norms, and best practices for members.

If you're genuinely interested in this regulatory aspect, you'll have to come to grips with what I've written above.

So, how do you read this?

"Federal Reserve Financial Services are governed by the terms and conditions that are set forth in the following operating circulars."

Quote:

The "should" prevents you from going where you want to go with this. It indicates that the practice of complete stamping was not being regularly observed, and that the Federal Reserve Banks desired more consistency. Simply that.

So how are you reading the ”terms and conditions” above?

Quote:

In sum, if the practice was sometimes not observed for perfectly innocuous and innocent reasons, there is no way to deduce that the absence of stamps "= forgery." If you're really interested in this PMO stamp argument, there's much more work for you to do. My forecast is that that work will not lead to a conclusion of official forgery.

I’m still not claiming that the absense of said bank endorsing stamps is proof of forgery. I’m claiming that according to the governing terms and conditions stated in the federal regulations found in the governing circulars, there should be said bank endorsing stamps on the PMO’s.

This is the federal regulations, NOT suggestions for whatever reasons.

The question is of what could happen if these regulations was NOT followed by the banks involved. Since Kleins deposited thousands of PMO’s to their bank every day, certain routines was absolutely necessary in every step of the process the PMO went through before closing the purchase.

This could not be random arbitrary procedures = the Hidell PMO was an anomaly or it was standard.

Or it was a fake.

manifesto · 12th June 2018, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by OKBob

You can't keep ignoring what I've written and be credible on this issue, manifesto.

No, but I can have a cop of coffe now and then.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=226

OKBob · 12th June 2018, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by manifesto

No, but I can have a cop of coffe now and then.

Okay, let's focus on this: "Federal Reserve Financial Services are governed by the terms and conditions that are set forth in the following operating circulars."

Yes, exactly. "Terms and conditions" indicates that the banks were contracting with each other to standardize their operations--very different from the top-down regulations that the CFR contains. Ever see the phrase "terms and conditions" on things you click on online? A contract.

And because this was a matter of banks communicating with each other, the word "should" really just indicated what they hoped for, desired, aspired to.

"Should" acknowledged implicitly that strict compliance was not always occurring. But surely not all failures to comply strictly were instances of government forgery. So I don't see how your argument can succeed.

OKBob · 12th June 2018, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by manifesto

No, but I can have a cop of coffe now and then.

Here's another of my points that I don't think you've responded to:

Did Circular No. 4928 actually apply to Oswald's transaction at all? Oswald's money order was processed by the First National Bank of Chicago, apparently through the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (District 7). Circular No. 4928 was issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (District 2) to its clearing banks. Since these circulars operated as contractual understandings, could a District 2 circular bind banks in District 7?

I'm not asking this rhetorically. I'm not sure of the answer. But it raises a potential problem for your argument that I think you must resolve.

traxy · 12th June 2018, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by manifesto

2. That said, no, neither you or anyone else have succeded to ”burn to the ground” HSCA’s acoustical investigation + results. Alarmingly many have tried over the years.

I’m prepared to return to this subject when ”Hank’s” little whining-list is done and out with.

No need to return to the topic. This thread has collectively produced more than enough supplementary information for any lurkers or readers to make a well-informed call on whether the audio evidence has any merit.

RoboTimbo · 12th June 2018, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by manifesto

I’m still not claiming that the absense of said bank endorsing stamps is proof of forgery.

Originally Posted by manifesto

no bank endorsement stamps that according to the federal regulations should be present = forgery

I don't think you

can keep up with your own nonsense.

manifesto · 12th June 2018, 12:46 PM

- double -

manifesto · 12th June 2018, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Here's the 100 claims ...

Quote:

3 - Evidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by manifesto
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4152
- That JFK was assassinated in a covert coup d’etat because he was leading the US and the rest of the world in a completely different direction than that of the US National Security State.

Quote:

4 - Evidence?
Originally Posted by manifesto
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4152
- That (elements within) the CIA was behind the planning and execution of the assassination, using the same network/nexus used in the attempts to assassinate Castro.

Quote:

5 - Evidence?
Originally Posted by manifesto
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4152
- That LBJ and Hoover was in on it guaranteeing the cover up.

Quote:

6 - Evidence?
Originally Posted by manifesto
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4152
- That some of the highest military brass was in on it and prepared to intervene if the cover up did not succeed, making the coup overt.

Quote:

7 - Evidence?
Originally Posted by manifesto
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4152
- That heavy elements within MSM in connection with CIA/Dulles was in on it, providing the necessary propaganda and cover up.

Quote:

8 - Evidence?
Originally Posted by manifesto
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4152
- That most of all those who took part in the cover up on different levels did it for reasons of National Security, black mail and/or following orders.

Quote:

9 - Evidence?
Originally Posted by manifesto
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4152
- That the cover up, when institutionalized, became impossible to uncover without a revolutionary change in US society.

All this is part of a ’big picture argument’ showing what I’m personally convinced of actually happened and continues to happen. Hence no detailed claims of proofs validating my outlook. So far.

As I said earlier, sometimes I see a need to counter false sweeping statements in line with the ”Lone Nut Oswald” official narrative promulgated by the US National Security State since day one, with equally sweeping, but true, statements regarding what actually happened.

That said, I’m NOT refusing to provide evidence of these big picture argument with reference to som pathetic ”null” or ”concilience”, I’m saying that my ’big picture-narrative’ takes time to more firmely establish with often circumstantial evidence and deductions from what evidence there is.

This is an ongoing process and will in time become crystal clear.

No worries.

Hank’s little whining list is now down from alleged 100 to an alleged 91.

More to come.

OKBob · 12th June 2018, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by manifesto

This is the federal regulations, NOT suggestions for whatever reasons. [...] the Hidell PMO was an anomaly or it was standard.

I've already explained that you are using "federal regulations" here in a misleading way. The banks were urging each other to comply with a uniform, standard procedure, and at the same time acknowledging that strict compliance was not always being observed. They wanted and urged strict compliance, but they were not holding up transactions that lacked complete stamping.

As to LHO's PMO being "an anomaly or standard," that's a false dilemma. It lacked complete stamping and was still processed.

RoboTimbo · 12th June 2018, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by manifesto

That said, I’m NOT refusing to provide evidence of these big picture argument with reference to som pathetic ”null” or ”concilience”,

LOL. We don't need no stinking consilience!

manifesto · 12th June 2018, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by traxy

No need to return to the topic. This thread has collectively produced more than enough supplementary information for any lurkers or readers to make a well-informed call on whether the audio evidence has any merit.

This makes me even more determined to list all your ”debunkings” one by one and comprehensively refute them i one single post.

After this it’s going to be easy to refute future false statements in line with what you have produced here and elsewhere. One klick away.

At your service.

smartcooky · 12th June 2018, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by traxy

- It has been dismantled by the visual record, indicating that HB McLean could not have been where he needed to be.

- It has been dismantled by the testimony of HB McLean and his riding partner Marion Baker.

Further, despite numerous requests to do so, he still has not answered my initial request that he explain HIS understanding of how the HSCA acoustic theory even worked, and WHY the stuck microphone had to be in certain places at certain times.

manifesto merely posts up the writings he finds in CT loon website results from his Google searches without understanding how they were achieved. He doesn't understand the technical details of the theory. It was the deep flaws in those technical details that proved the undoing of the theory, and ultimately the CBA was able to determine that.

Come on manifesto. If I'm wrong and you really do understand the claimed science behind the theory, here's your chance to have a win. Prove me wrong. Tell us now it all worked. Use diagrams if you have to.

Hans · 12th June 2018, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by manifesto

This makes me even more determined to list all your ”debunkings” one by one and comprehensively refute them i one single post.

After this it’s going to be easy to reute future false statements in line with what you have produced here and elsewhere. One klick away.

At your service.

Yet you won't just more verbal gibberish......

carlitos · 12th June 2018, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

I don't think you

can keep up with your own nonsense.

Originally Posted by manifesto

I’m still not claiming that the absense of said bank endorsing stamps is proof of forgery.

Originally Posted by manifesto

no bank endorsement stamps that according to the federal regulations should be present = forgery

Hans · 12th June 2018, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post

Quote:

I’m still not claiming that the absense of said bank endorsing stamps is proof of forgery.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
no bank endorsement stamps that according to the federal regulations should be present = forgery

Classic he cannot even remember what he is making up...lol

11th June 2018, 11:22 PM	#201
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 10,397	Originally Posted by manifesto So, why dispute it? Where did I dispute it? Cite, Explain Originally Posted by manifesto There is, but I rather settle the issue with the fake Hidell PMO before continuing with exactly how it was faked and by whom. One step at a time. Translation: You don't have the answer Originally Posted by manifesto He asked who was in charge of the murder investigation. I answered. The FBI. ► I asked who disappeared the bullets supposedly fired at JFK by the alleged multiple shooters ► You said "Elements within the CIA planned and organized the assassination" "they controlled the technical evidence." ► Axxman300 said "How? We need details, names, locations, etc " ► You replied https://www.fbi.gov/ First, you started with the CIA then gave the FBI as your answer. It seems that you can't even get your alphabet soup straight, let alone your own story... only liars can't keep their stories straight. Second, simply posting a link is not an answer when you are asked for names and locations. If you can't provide names and locations when asked, retract the claim. Originally Posted by manifesto Here they are, summarized by Gary L. Aguilar, MD. - The Parkland doctors and nurses - The agents from FBI and Secret Service - The medical personel at Bethesda http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm No, YOU provide the evidence yourself. We don't do your research for you. Originally Posted by manifesto WC testimony of Lt. Carl Day: Mr. BELIN. Handing you what has been marked "Exhibit 545," I will ask you to state if you know what this is. Mr. DAY. This is one of the hulls in the envelope which I opened at 10 o'clock. It has my name written on the end of it. Mr. BELIN. When you say, on the end of it, where on the end of it? Mr. DAY. On the small end where the slug would go. Mr. BELIN. And it has "Day" on it? Mr. DAY. Scratched on there; yes, sir. Mr. BELIN. With what instrument did you scratch it on? Mr. DAY. A diamond point pencil. (1 DAY) Mr. BELIN. I believe you said that you examined the three shells today? Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. Mr. BELIN. Now, I am going to ask you to state if you know what Commission Exhibit 543 is? Mr. DAY. That is a hull that does not have my marking on it. Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not this was one of the hulls that was found at the School Book Depository Building? Mr. DAY. I think it is. Mr. BELIN. What makes you think it is? Mr. DAY. It has the initials "G. D." on it, which is George Doughty, the captain that I worked under. (1 GD) Mr. BELIN. Now, handing you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 544, I will ask you to state if you know what this is. Mr. DAY. This is the second hull that was in the envelope when I marked the two hulls that night on November 22. Mr. BELIN. I have now marked this envelope, which was formerly a part of Commission Exhibits 543 and 544 with a separate Commission Exhibit No. 717, and I believe you testify now that Commission Exhibit 544 was the other shell that was in the envelope which has now been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 717. Mr. DAY. Yes. Mr. BELIN. Does that cartridge case, Exhibit 544, have your name on it again? Mr. DAY. It has my name on the small end where the slug would go into the shell. (1 DAY) That is: 2 shells with DAY engraved and 1 with, GD. But, Lt. Day changes his mind again, in spite of having carefully studied the three shells in evidence. In a correction to his testimony he writes this in a sworn affidavit to WC: Close examination with a magnifying glass under a good light disclosed that my name "Day" was on all three hulls, at the small end. Also GD for Captain George Doughty was on two of them. Commission numbers 543 and 544 were the first two sent to Washington on November 22, 1963. They have Doughty's initials where he marked the hulls as they were released to Vince Drain at 11:45 P.M. on November 22, 1963 by Doughty and Day. The third hull, commission number 545, does not have Doughty's mark, but is plainly marked "Day". In Washington, I had numbers 543 and 545 switched because I didn't find my name on number 543. That makes it: all 3 shells with DAY engraved and 2 shells also with GD on them. So, where are these 3 + 2 = initials on the three shells in evidence? NARA couldn’t find them. Can you? http://www.krusch.com/jfk/Shells_National_Archives.zip No I can't find them, and I'm not surprised. Those shells are almost 50 years old (at the time they were photographed), and even if they were properly stored, the brass surface will have deteriorated a lot Originally Posted by manifesto I wrote: Well, they didn’t. They used the same people involved in the plans and efforts to assassinate Castro & co. Axxman300 replied: RFK was in on it? Axxman300 implies that RFK was involved in the efforts to assassinate Castro. No he does not. You clearly do not understand the implications of the interrogative in the English language. The question mark means he is asking you, not that he is making claim. Originally Posted by manifesto Another creepy laughter What's creepy about laughing at stupidity Originally Posted by manifesto Program to recruit foreign criminal assets for various illegal activities including burglary, wire taps, strong arm work and thefts in support of ZR code breaking work. Later used by William Harvey as a cover for an Executive Action assassinations program. https://www.maryferrell.org/php/cryptdb.php?id=ZRRIFLE In November 1961 William Harvey was ordered to activate an assassination plot against Fidel Castro. This became part of what became known as the ZR/RIFLE project. Harvey decided to transfer David Sanchez Morales from Mexico City to the JM WAVE station. Johnny Roselli was also recruited into the project. http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKzrrifle.htm That's as may be, but you have yet to show any evidence whatsoever that it has anything to do with the JFK assassination Originally Posted by manifesto Mark Wyatt worked for the CIA in Rome under William Harvey, who had been removed from the Cuba effort by JFK/RFK after sending speedboats with Cuban exiles in to Cuba in the middle of the Missile-crisis almost causing WWIII and nuclear armageddon. According to Wyatts children he allways talked about Harvey in connection with the JFK assassination. Hours after the news of JFK’s death, Harvey had blurted out offensive remarks in front of Wyatt showing he had to have had foreknowledge of the assassination. Wyatts fixation and anguish over what he knew of the Harvey connection prompted his children to try to persuade him to testify to the HSCA, but he couldn’t betray the CIA who he was still loyal to and believed in. When in 1998 interviewed by the French investigative journalist, Fabrizio Calvi, about the CIA’s connections to Operation Gladio, Wyatt suddenly said out of the blue: ”You know, I always wondered what Bill Harvey was doing in Dallas in November 1963,” After this shocker Wyatt told him how he had bumped in to Harvey on a plane to Dallas sometime before the assassination and asked him why he was going there. Harvey had answered vaugely: “I’m here to see what’s happening.” (Talbot, David: The Devils Chessboard) David Talbot has since tried to FOIA Bill Haveys travel vouchers from that period in time from the CIA, but so far no show. Also HSCA investigator Dan Hardway tried to get hold of Harveys travel vouchers and security files 1978, but got stone walled by the CIA in spite of his Congressional mandate to investigate the assassination of JFK. Harvey was one of the prime suspects in the assassination according to Hardway. Maybe Harveys widow, ex CIA officer C.G. Harvey, should tell you her self? ”They were really scum”: https://youtu.be/iabXbtn5mUE (1:46) https://youtu.be/WzOs-jTOo-Q [/quote] All interesting, but all ultimately irrelevant. People's opinions have no value as evidence (unless they are expert witnesses in a specialist subject or profession)! What people recall other people saying is called "hearsay", and it has no value as evidence. Oh, and you are quoting David Talbot.... another CT loon. The mad fantasies of CT loons have no value as evidence.
	__________________ _{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}

11th June 2018, 11:24 PM	#202
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 10,397	Originally Posted by manifesto What ”point” did I miss? I suggest you google "Secret Service"
	__________________ _{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}

11th June 2018, 11:44 PM	#203
manifesto Banned Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,906	Originally Posted by smartcooky I suggest you google "Secret Service" What ”point” did I miss?
manifesto Banned Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,906

11th June 2018, 11:52 PM	#204
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 10,397	Originally Posted by manifesto What ”point” did I miss? If you aren't able to work it out, I'm not explaining it to you I don't have time to deal with it now More later (see how annoying that is?)
	__________________ _{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} Last edited by smartcooky; 11th June 2018 at 11:55 PM.

11th June 2018, 11:59 PM	#205
manifesto Banned Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,906	Originally Posted by smartcooky If you aren't able to work it out, I'm not explaining it to you I don't have time to deal with it now More later (see how annoying that is?) Take your time, ”smartcooky”, I can wait for Axxmans ”point”. If there is any, that is. Probably not.
manifesto Banned Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,906

12th June 2018, 06:45 AM	#206
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Springwood, NJ Posts: 29,524	Originally Posted by manifesto What documents.? <snip TLDR> I thought you claimed to be well-read on the subject. LOL. What is your comprehensive alternative hypothesis for who assassinated JFK?

12th June 2018, 07:11 AM	#207
traxy Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 465	Originally Posted by Wolrab Fringe reset! The HSCA acoustic evidence has been thoroughly and completely debunked. Multiple times. That you don't accept it is your problem. Agreed. That dead horse has been well and truly beaten into the ground. No need to revisit.
traxy Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 465

12th June 2018, 08:28 AM	#208
Whip Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 1,251	Originally Posted by traxy Agreed. That dead horse has been well and truly beaten into the ground. No need to revisit. if you listen close enough, you can hear it being whacked 4 or 5 times. allegedly
Whip Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 1,251

12th June 2018, 08:29 AM	#209
bknight Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2017 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 1,130	Originally Posted by traxy Agreed. That dead horse has been well and truly beaten into the ground. No need to revisit. I agree with the HSCA acoustic presentation has been beaten down, however our adversary doesn't understand how it was debunked and will therefore submit the claim that it is still valid.

12th June 2018, 08:34 AM	#210
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Springwood, NJ Posts: 29,524	Originally Posted by Whip if you listen close enough, you can hear it being whacked 4 or 5 times. allegedly Can you prove that horse wasn't shot with a silenced weapon? How do you know that the bloody stick found next to it wasn't planted?

12th June 2018, 09:03 AM	#211
Hans Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 7,775	Originally Posted by RoboTimbo Can you prove that horse wasn't shot with a silenced weapon? How do you know that the bloody stick found next to it wasn't planted? No, no if the stick was planted and its planter was based on the CT view of the CIA's ability to fake evidence the stick would be made of unglued lego's and covered with Heinz tomato sauce and have written on it 'this was NOT put here by the secret conspiracy. We do not live at Central Intelligence Agency, Office of outrageous stupid stuff, Washington, D.C. 20505, (703) 482-0623'.
Hans Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 7,775	Last edited by Hans; 12th June 2018 at 09:09 AM.

12th June 2018, 09:08 AM	#212
Hans Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 7,775	Originally Posted by manifesto It have to wait. ....in other words you ain't doing it http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post12317577 Manifesto said: I’m really doing my very best keeping up with your requests. Nice and easy. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4860 [quote=Hans;12317577]This is day ten of no evidence from manifesto Manifesto is now up to 83+ 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. Actually you're not you are justing saying you are. We have another example of your lying on this subject above. 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 Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 7,775

12th June 2018, 09:16 AM	#213
manifesto Banned Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,906	Originally Posted by HSienzant Here's the 100 claims by Manifesto that he was asked to provide evidence for. He has yet to support any of them with legitimate evidence. 2 provided = 98 still to be provided. Nice and easy. Quote: 1 - Evidence? Originally Posted by manifesto http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4152 - I know that at least two shooters fired at least 5 rifle shots, four from behind the limo and one, the fatal headshot, from in front behind the picket fence on the knoll. Done: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=189 Quote: 2 - Evidence? Originally Posted by manifesto http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4152 - That the cover up kicked in as soon the last shot was fired. Done: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=189 Quote: - That Oswald did not shoot anyone that day and that he was the patsy he claimed he was. This is actually another claim that you are claiming that I haven’t provided evidence for. Which I of course have. 1. The HSCA acoustical scientific evidence of the killing headshot comming from in front to the right of the president (knoll) = Oswald allegedly shooting from behind the president = not the alleged killing shot = Oswald innocent of the actual killing. - Evidence for this are provided here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=189 2. The Hidell PMO that have no bank endorsement stamps that according to the federal regulations should be present = forgery = Oswald didn’t purchase the rifle = Oswald didn’t own the rifle = the alleged murder weapon had no known connection to Oswald + the forgery prove that Oswald was framed by the conspirators as the patsy he said he was: - Evidence for this is still under current debate. One step at a time. 3. Dallas chief of police, Jessie Curry stating in an interview years after the assassination that: "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand." http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKcurryJ.htm To name but a few of the evidence of Oswald being a patsy. There are litterally hundreds and hundreds more. Some of them pointed out and provided evidence for by me and others earlier in the thread. More to come.
manifesto Banned Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,906

12th June 2018, 09:27 AM	#214
Whip Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 1,251	Originally Posted by RoboTimbo Can you prove that horse wasn't shot with a silenced weapon? How do you know that the bloody stick found next to it wasn't planted? I'm sure the stick was left by the FillyBeatingInflictors.
Whip Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 1,251

12th June 2018, 09:35 AM	#215
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Springwood, NJ Posts: 29,524	Originally Posted by manifesto 1. The HSCA acoustical scientific evidence of the killing headshot comming from in front to the right Repeating long debunked CT idiocy doesn't make it any truer. Quote: 2. The Hidell PMO that have no bank endorsement stamps Repeating long debunked CT idiocy doesn't make it any truer.

12th June 2018, 09:48 AM	#216
OKBob Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2017 Posts: 344	Originally Posted by manifesto 2. The Hidell PMO that have no bank endorsement stamps that according to the federal regulations should be present = forgery Back in post #5286, I listed a number of things you should research before making anything like this equation. Among my recommendations, I wrote: Circular No. 4928 was not a part of the "federal regulations," as you have claimed. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) contains regulations that have been proposed by federal agencies, submitted to a notice, publication, and public comment process, and eventually promulgated as rules in the CFR. Federal Reserve operating circulars, of which No. 4928 was one, were different. They were not put through the regulatory process I just described. Instead, they were issued by Federal Reserve Banks to their participating clearing banks, and the duties they created for banks were contractual in nature, not regulatory in the typical way. Because these circulars were, in effect, banks talking to banks, this explains some of the nonbinding "should," "may," or "banks are urged" language found in No. 4928. This language suggests that the banks were setting goals, aspirational norms, and best practices for members. If you're genuinely interested in this regulatory aspect, you'll have to come to grips with what I've written above. The "should" prevents you from going where you want to go with this. It indicates that the practice of complete stamping was not being regularly observed, and that the Federal Reserve Banks desired more consistency. Simply that. In sum, if the practice was sometimes not observed for perfectly innocuous and innocent reasons, there is no way to deduce that the absence of stamps "= forgery." If you're really interested in this PMO stamp argument, there's much more work for you to do. My forecast is that that work will not lead to a conclusion of official forgery.
OKBob Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2017 Posts: 344	Last edited by OKBob; 12th June 2018 at 09:52 AM.

12th June 2018, 10:01 AM	#217
HSienzant Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,712	Originally Posted by manifesto 2. The Hidell PMO that have no bank endorsement stamps that according to the federal regulations ~~should be present = forgery~~ are optional but recommended = legitimate. FTFY. Everyone can see you're just ignoring inconvenient facts that conflict with your beliefs. 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

12th June 2018, 10:14 AM	#218
traxy Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 465	Originally Posted by manifesto 1. The HSCA acoustical scientific evidence of the killing headshot comming from in front to the right of the president (knoll) = Oswald allegedly shooting from behind the president = not the alleged killing shot = Oswald innocent of the actual killing. As another poster astutely pointed out, this is an attempted fringe reset. You're circling back around to your first point which has been burned to the ground already. - The HSCA acoustic evidence has been dismantled by multiple independent studies, which have been provided to you and explained to you in painstaking detail. - It has been dismantled by the visual record, indicating that HB McLean could not have been where he needed to be. - It has been dismantled by the testimony of HB McLean and his riding partner Marion Baker. - The notion of a frontal shot has been dismantled by the entirety of the photographic record comprised of 3 films, one polaroid, the autopsy photographs and the autopsy x-rays. All of these elements have been examined and authenticated by multiple studies which have been provided for you and explained to you in painstaking detail.
traxy Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 465

12th June 2018, 10:44 AM	#219
Hans Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 7,775	Originally Posted by traxy As another poster astutely pointed out, this is an attempted fringe reset. You're circling back around to your first point which has been burned to the ground already. - The HSCA acoustic evidence has been dismantled by multiple independent studies, which have been provided to you and explained to you in painstaking detail. - It has been dismantled by the visual record, indicating that HB McLean could not have been where he needed to be. - It has been dismantled by the testimony of HB McLean and his riding partner Marion Baker. - The notion of a frontal shot has been dismantled by the entirety of the photographic record comprised of 3 films, one polaroid, the autopsy photographs and the autopsy x-rays. All of these elements have been examined and authenticated by multiple studies which have been provided for you and explained to you in painstaking detail. This guy is pretty boring. Of course his real purpose is something other than discussing the JFK assassination - just repeating old debunk crap works just find for his objective.
Hans Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 7,775

12th June 2018, 11:37 AM	#220
manifesto Banned Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,906	Originally Posted by traxy As another poster astutely pointed out, this is an attempted fringe reset. You're circling back around to your first point which has been burned to the ground already. No, Traxy, you are wrong: 1. My post is a response to ”Hank’s” accusation that I have not provided evidence, explained it and argued for its veracity. Well, ”Hank” was clearly lying in this case, since I did. 2. That said, no, neither you or anyone else have succeded to ”burn to the ground” HSCA’s acoustical investigation + results. Alarmingly many have tried over the years. I’m prepared to return to this subject when ”Hank’s” little whining-list is done and out with. Until then, I suggest you read up on your favorite ”debunkings”. So far you have not presented a convincing case.
manifesto Banned Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,906	Last edited by manifesto; 12th June 2018 at 11:39 AM.

12th June 2018, 11:41 AM	#221
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Springwood, NJ Posts: 29,524	Originally Posted by manifesto 2. That said, no, neither you or anyone else have succeded to ”burn to the ground” HSCA’s acoustical investigation + results. This is why a CTs opinion is of zero value. It's just irrational and delusional denial. HSCA acoustical nonsense - burned to the ground.

12th June 2018, 11:42 AM	#222
manifesto Banned Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,906	Originally Posted by HSienzant FTFY. Everyone can see you're just ignoring inconvenient facts that conflict with your beliefs. Hank The federal regulations states that certain bank endorsing stamps should be prominently present on both sides of the PMO’s but that they shouldn’t. Hank.
manifesto Banned Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,906

12th June 2018, 11:44 AM	#223
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Springwood, NJ Posts: 29,524	Originally Posted by OKBob Circular No. 4928 was not a part of the "federal regulations," as you have claimed. Originally Posted by manifesto The federal regulations states Irrational and delusional denial.

12th June 2018, 11:51 AM	#224
OKBob Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2017 Posts: 344	Originally Posted by manifesto The federal regulations states that certain bank endorsing stamps should be prominently present on both sides of the PMO’s but that they shouldn’t. You can't keep ignoring what I've written and be credible on this issue, manifesto.
OKBob Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2017 Posts: 344

12th June 2018, 12:02 PM	#225
HSienzant Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,712	Originally Posted by manifesto The federal regulations states that certain bank endorsing stamps should be prominently present on both sides of the PMO’s but that they shouldn’t. Hank. Straw man argument. Quote what I said, not what you wish to pretend I said. 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

12th June 2018, 12:13 PM	#226
manifesto Banned Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,906	Originally Posted by OKBob Back in post #5286, I listed a number of things you should research before making anything like this equation. Among my recommendations, I wrote: Circular No. 4928 was not a part of the "federal regulations," as you have claimed. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) contains regulations that have been proposed by federal agencies, submitted to a notice, publication, and public comment process, and eventually promulgated as rules in the CFR. Federal Reserve operating circulars, of which No. 4928 was one, were different. They were not put through the regulatory process I just described. Instead, they were issued by Federal Reserve Banks to their participating clearing banks, and the duties they created for banks were contractual in nature, not regulatory in the typical way. Because these circulars were, in effect, banks talking to banks, this explains some of the nonbinding "should," "may," or "banks are urged" language found in No. 4928. This language suggests that the banks were setting goals, aspirational norms, and best practices for members. If you're genuinely interested in this regulatory aspect, you'll have to come to grips with what I've written above. So, how do you read this? "Federal Reserve Financial Services are governed by the terms and conditions that are set forth in the following operating circulars." Quote: The "should" prevents you from going where you want to go with this. It indicates that the practice of complete stamping was not being regularly observed, and that the Federal Reserve Banks desired more consistency. Simply that. So how are you reading the ”terms and conditions” above? Quote: In sum, if the practice was sometimes not observed for perfectly innocuous and innocent reasons, there is no way to deduce that the absence of stamps "= forgery." If you're really interested in this PMO stamp argument, there's much more work for you to do. My forecast is that that work will not lead to a conclusion of official forgery. I’m still not claiming that the absense of said bank endorsing stamps is proof of forgery. I’m claiming that according to the governing terms and conditions stated in the federal regulations found in the governing circulars, there should be said bank endorsing stamps on the PMO’s. This is the federal regulations, NOT suggestions for whatever reasons. The question is of what could happen if these regulations was NOT followed by the banks involved. Since Kleins deposited thousands of PMO’s to their bank every day, certain routines was absolutely necessary in every step of the process the PMO went through before closing the purchase. This could not be random arbitrary procedures = the Hidell PMO was an anomaly or it was standard. Or it was a fake.
manifesto Banned Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,906

12th June 2018, 12:15 PM	#227
manifesto Banned Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,906	Originally Posted by OKBob You can't keep ignoring what I've written and be credible on this issue, manifesto. No, but I can have a cop of coffe now and then. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=226
manifesto Banned Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,906

12th June 2018, 12:26 PM	#228
OKBob Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2017 Posts: 344	Originally Posted by manifesto No, but I can have a cop of coffe now and then. Okay, let's focus on this: "Federal Reserve Financial Services are governed by the terms and conditions that are set forth in the following operating circulars." Yes, exactly. "Terms and conditions" indicates that the banks were contracting with each other to standardize their operations--very different from the top-down regulations that the CFR contains. Ever see the phrase "terms and conditions" on things you click on online? A contract. And because this was a matter of banks communicating with each other, the word "should" really just indicated what they hoped for, desired, aspired to. "Should" acknowledged implicitly that strict compliance was not always occurring. But surely not all failures to comply strictly were instances of government forgery. So I don't see how your argument can succeed.
OKBob Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2017 Posts: 344	Last edited by OKBob; 12th June 2018 at 12:28 PM.

12th June 2018, 12:31 PM	#229
OKBob Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2017 Posts: 344	Originally Posted by manifesto No, but I can have a cop of coffe now and then. Here's another of my points that I don't think you've responded to: Did Circular No. 4928 actually apply to Oswald's transaction at all? Oswald's money order was processed by the First National Bank of Chicago, apparently through the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (District 7). Circular No. 4928 was issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (District 2) to its clearing banks. Since these circulars operated as contractual understandings, could a District 2 circular bind banks in District 7? I'm not asking this rhetorically. I'm not sure of the answer. But it raises a potential problem for your argument that I think you must resolve.
OKBob Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2017 Posts: 344

12th June 2018, 12:36 PM	#230
traxy Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 465	Originally Posted by manifesto 2. That said, no, neither you or anyone else have succeded to ”burn to the ground” HSCA’s acoustical investigation + results. Alarmingly many have tried over the years. I’m prepared to return to this subject when ”Hank’s” little whining-list is done and out with. No need to return to the topic. This thread has collectively produced more than enough supplementary information for any lurkers or readers to make a well-informed call on whether the audio evidence has any merit.
traxy Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 465

12th June 2018, 12:41 PM	#231
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Springwood, NJ Posts: 29,524	Originally Posted by manifesto I’m still not claiming that the absense of said bank endorsing stamps is proof of forgery. Originally Posted by manifesto no bank endorsement stamps that according to the federal regulations should be present = forgery I don't think you can keep up with your own nonsense.

12th June 2018, 12:46 PM	#232
manifesto Banned Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,906	- double -
manifesto Banned Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,906	Last edited by manifesto; 12th June 2018 at 12:59 PM.

12th June 2018, 12:47 PM	#233
manifesto Banned Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,906	Originally Posted by HSienzant Here's the 100 claims ... Quote: 3 - Evidence? Quote: Originally Posted by manifesto http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4152 - That JFK was assassinated in a covert coup d’etat because he was leading the US and the rest of the world in a completely different direction than that of the US National Security State. Quote: 4 - Evidence? Originally Posted by manifesto http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4152 - That (elements within) the CIA was behind the planning and execution of the assassination, using the same network/nexus used in the attempts to assassinate Castro. Quote: 5 - Evidence? Originally Posted by manifesto http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4152 - That LBJ and Hoover was in on it guaranteeing the cover up. Quote: 6 - Evidence? Originally Posted by manifesto http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4152 - That some of the highest military brass was in on it and prepared to intervene if the cover up did not succeed, making the coup overt. Quote: 7 - Evidence? Originally Posted by manifesto http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4152 - That heavy elements within MSM in connection with CIA/Dulles was in on it, providing the necessary propaganda and cover up. Quote: 8 - Evidence? Originally Posted by manifesto http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4152 - That most of all those who took part in the cover up on different levels did it for reasons of National Security, black mail and/or following orders. Quote: 9 - Evidence? Originally Posted by manifesto http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4152 - That the cover up, when institutionalized, became impossible to uncover without a revolutionary change in US society. All this is part of a ’big picture argument’ showing what I’m personally convinced of actually happened and continues to happen. Hence no detailed claims of proofs validating my outlook. So far. As I said earlier, sometimes I see a need to counter false sweeping statements in line with the ”Lone Nut Oswald” official narrative promulgated by the US National Security State since day one, with equally sweeping, but true, statements regarding what actually happened. That said, I’m NOT refusing to provide evidence of these big picture argument with reference to som pathetic ”null” or ”concilience”, I’m saying that my ’big picture-narrative’ takes time to more firmely establish with often circumstantial evidence and deductions from what evidence there is. This is an ongoing process and will in time become crystal clear. No worries. Hank’s little whining list is now down from alleged 100 to an alleged 91. More to come.
manifesto Banned Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,906	Last edited by manifesto; 12th June 2018 at 12:56 PM.

12th June 2018, 12:52 PM	#234
OKBob Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2017 Posts: 344	Originally Posted by manifesto This is the federal regulations, NOT suggestions for whatever reasons. [...] the Hidell PMO was an anomaly or it was standard. I've already explained that you are using "federal regulations" here in a misleading way. The banks were urging each other to comply with a uniform, standard procedure, and at the same time acknowledging that strict compliance was not always being observed. They wanted and urged strict compliance, but they were not holding up transactions that lacked complete stamping. As to LHO's PMO being "an anomaly or standard," that's a false dilemma. It lacked complete stamping and was still processed.
OKBob Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2017 Posts: 344	Last edited by OKBob; 12th June 2018 at 12:55 PM.

12th June 2018, 12:53 PM	#235
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Springwood, NJ Posts: 29,524	Originally Posted by manifesto That said, I’m NOT refusing to provide evidence of these big picture argument with reference to som pathetic ”null” or ”concilience”, LOL. We don't need no stinking consilience!