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 !MOD BOX WARNING!

Closed Thread
Old 8th June 2018, 09:57 PM   #5281
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,339
I've got it! John Lennon's killer, Stephen King, even taunted us with it in 11/22/63. Oswald had access to a time portal built with those unlimited funds, went back to March and bought the same gun twice. He used one to shoot the president, rigged the compartment in the floor and stashed the murder weapon there. He left the unused gun to gun to be discovered figuring the first thing the DPD CSI's would do was stick their finger in the barrel and discover it was never fired and he could never be charged.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th June 2018, 10:12 PM   #5282
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,511
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Wow, that is creepy.
Yeah it is creepy to see an adult making false statements about doing stuff he isn't going to do....and being proud of saying so......c r e e p y.

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 Back to Top
Old 8th June 2018, 10:15 PM   #5283
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,511
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
So everyone's clear, Manifesto is arguing that the CIA didn't call the Post Office, or check with the relevant bank before faking the microfilm even though the CIA has a department dedicated to forgeries of various documents.

Then there's the bigger question of why not just buy the rifle with a real money order?
Yes in Manifesto's bizarro world they not only don't know how to do a simple task but this was one of hundreds of tasks they didn't do right. If you ask CTs you'll find the evil conspiracy did every single thing in the conspiracy wrong.......
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 Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 05:13 AM   #5284
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,507
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
I've got it! John Lennon's killer, Stephen King, even taunted us with it in 11/22/63. Oswald had access to a time portal built with those unlimited funds, went back to March and bought the same gun twice. He used one to shoot the president, rigged the compartment in the floor and stashed the murder weapon there. He left the unused gun to gun to be discovered figuring the first thing the DPD CSI's would do was stick their finger in the barrel and discover it was never fired and he could never be charged.
That could be a Stephen King novel.



And it's more thorough and explains more of the evidence than anything any CT has come up with in terms of a theory, ever.

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

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 9th June 2018 at 05:49 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 Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 05:49 AM   #5285
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,507
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Yes in Manifesto's bizarro world they not only don't know how to do a simple task but this was one of hundreds of tasks they didn't do right. If you ask CTs you'll find the evil conspiracy did every single thing in the conspiracy wrong.......
And Manifesto said exactly that in the past. Like here [emphasis added]:

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
This is however only one little piece of evidence in the whole chain of evidence allegedly showing that Oswald/Hidell bought the rifle. How is it with rest of the pieces of the chain? Same here. Everything is wrong. Impossible. Not plausible. Forgeries. Silly. Highly suspect. Etc, etc.

Wrong.
How is it this massive conspiracy with an unlimited budget couldn't get anything right, Manifesto?

If you can't explain and support your own arguments, why should anyone spend a minute debunking them?

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

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 9th June 2018 at 05:52 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 Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 05:58 AM   #5286
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 339
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
It was not you who flaunted your alleged expertise, it was other participants in the thread.
I've only mentioned that I'm a lawyer and law professor. If others have repeated that point, they have not been flaunting my expertise. In any case, I don't claim expertise in commercial transactions, banking laws, or the Federal Reserve system. I have only stated that I'm familiar with the way legal language signifies, and that "should" is not a word typically used in law to denote a legal requirement, failure to comply with which triggers sanctions.

But you're the one with the burden to establish the legal significance of the language and its effect, if any, on Oswald's postal money order. I raise the following points as issues I think you will have to consider as you pursue your proof-gathering:

1. 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.

2. 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. (You should read the whole circular to get a feel for how "should" operates in the context of other wording.) These documents, in addition to occasional mandatory language, were setting goals, aspirational norms, and best practices for members.

3. It is worth asking whether Circular No. 4928 actually applied 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?

4. Once again, I'll suggest that "should" is different from "shall" or "must." It is advisory or recommendatory in tone rather than mandatory. "Should" implies a scenario in which existing practice has been observed to be uneven. "You should brush your teeth daily" suggests that the child is inconsistent. Failure to comply with a "should" would not likely trigger penalties.

5. Let's say arguendo that you can prove that "should" was mandatory and that Oswald's money order lacked required stamps. It appears that the money order was honored anyway: Klein's was paid, and Oswald, as Hiddell, received his purchase. Bureaucracies often operate that way. We want our banking system to function and not be held up by the venial sins of bureaucrats.

6. If you think that the absence of stamps resulted from a bungled conspiratorial fabrication, you still have to prove the fabrication and the cover-up. Oswald's money order by itself does not do all that work for you. This is why I say that you have all your work in front of you.

Last edited by OKBob; 9th June 2018 at 06:54 AM.
OKBob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 09:19 AM   #5287
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 870
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
I've only mentioned that I'm a lawyer and law professor. If others have repeated that point, they have not been flaunting my expertise. In any case, I don't claim expertise in commercial transactions, banking laws, or the Federal Reserve system. I have only stated that I'm familiar with the way legal language signifies, and that "should" is not a word typically used in law to denote a legal requirement, failure to comply with which triggers sanctions.

But you're the one with the burden to establish the legal significance of the language and its effect, if any, on Oswald's postal money order. I raise the following points as issues I think you will have to consider as you pursue your proof-gathering:

1. 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.

2. 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. (You should read the whole circular to get a feel for how "should" operates in the context of other wording.) These documents, in addition to occasional mandatory language, were setting goals, aspirational norms, and best practices for members.

3. It is worth asking whether Circular No. 4928 actually applied 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?

4. Once again, I'll suggest that "should" is different from "shall" or "must." It is advisory or recommendatory in tone rather than mandatory. "Should" implies a scenario in which existing practice has been observed to be uneven. "You should brush your teeth daily" suggests that the child is inconsistent. Failure to comply with a "should" would not likely trigger penalties.

5. Let's say arguendo that you can prove that "should" was mandatory and that Oswald's money order lacked required stamps. It appears that the money order was honored anyway: Klein's was paid, and Oswald, as Hiddell, received his purchase. Bureaucracies often operate that way. We want our banking system to function and not be held up by the venial sins of bureaucrats.

6. If you think that the absence of stamps resulted from a bungled conspiratorial fabrication, you still have to prove the fabrication and the cover-up. Oswald's money order by itself does not do all that work for you. This is why I say that you have all your work in front of you.
OMG, spoken just like a lawyer.

I believe you won your case.

And it is moot since the money order was paid.
That is unless one is jousting with windmills.
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 Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 10:24 AM   #5288
manifesto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,897
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Asked and answered. The answer won't change no matter how many times you ask. There's a 'should' in there, not a 'shall'.
But you agree that according to the federal regulations, there ”should” be endorsing bank stamps prominently visible on both sides on a PMO, 1963?

Quote:
Nobody cares what you think or what you're unsure about. Your level of confusion is not the controlling factor here.

Hank
No, the controlling factor here is fanatical secterian holy faith, like in all holy congregations before they come crumbleling down.

I’m trying to save as many as possible of you before that happens. Mercy.
__________________
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society" - John F. Kennedy

Last edited by manifesto; 9th June 2018 at 12:17 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 Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 10:27 AM   #5289
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,222
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
But you agree that according to the federal regulations, there ”should” be endorsing bank stamps prominently visible on both sides on a PMO, 1963?
You are making the claim, what do you think?

Quote:
No, the controlling factor here is fanatical secterian holy faith, like in all holy congregetaions before they come crubleling down.

I’m trying to save as many as possible of you before that happens. Mercy.
Remember the relative value of common CT religionist opinions.

Last edited by RoboTimbo; 9th June 2018 at 10:28 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 10:32 AM   #5290
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,222
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
But you agree that according to the federal regulations, there ”should” be endorsing bank stamps prominently visible on both sides on a PMO, 1963?
You do agree that Sandy Larsen is an idiot for stupidly thinking "should" and "shall" are the same word, don't you ?
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 Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 10:47 AM   #5291
manifesto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,897
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
And Manifesto said exactly that in the past. Like here [emphasis added]:



How is it this massive conspiracy with an unlimited budget couldn't get anything right, Manifesto?

If you can't explain and support your own arguments, why should anyone spend a minute debunking them?

Hank
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.
__________________
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society" - John F. Kennedy
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 Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 10:56 AM   #5292
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,222
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Cite ONE A WHOLE BUNCH OF things I have made up
You do agree that these were just pulled out of Uranus.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
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.
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 Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 11:04 AM   #5293
manifesto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,897
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
You do agree that Sandy Larsen is an idiot for stupidly thinking "should" and "shall" are the same word, don't you ?
No. Point out where he thinks that.
__________________
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society" - John F. Kennedy
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 Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 11:05 AM   #5294
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,222
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No. Point out where he thinks that.
Do you think "should" and "shall" are the same word?
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 Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 11:24 AM   #5295
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,099
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
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.
There was no cover-up.

Plus, this is factually inaccurate. If you look at real cases where law enforcement framed a suspect for an easy conviction they destroyed evidence, they didn't fabricate it. You fail


Quote:
In a court room the defence would have had a massacre on both the witness testimonies and on the alleged technical evidence.
In courtroom the defense would have to explain the three photographs, the witnesses in Texas and New Orleans who saw him with the rifle, the people at the firing range who saw him with the rifle, Ruth Paine, whose garage in which he stored his rifle, his prints on the rifle, the rifle found at his place of employment immediately after the shooting.

Oswald fries in the chair for the weapon evidence alone.

Quote:
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.
Nope.

Quote:
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’.
You wish. The fact is that a fellow communist shot JFK because he was a failure in life.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 11:41 AM   #5296
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,575
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
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.
In a court room all the claims you have failed to support here, that evidence could have been tampered with, would have to be supported by evidence they *were* tampered with.
This would fail.
In court the vague memories of people decades later would be tested by, not assumed more accurate than, the photographs and documents.

Your confidence in the case you posit to be a slam dunk in the courtroom suggests an ignorance of legal standards.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 11:53 AM   #5297
manifesto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,897
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
I've only mentioned that I'm a lawyer and law professor. If others have repeated that point, they have not been flaunting my expertise.
Yes they have, when stating this as reason for taking everything you say as gospel. You may well be an expert on the issus at hand but that doesn’t exclude you from having to provide evidence in support of your statements. And certainly not if you are an outspoken member of the Lone Nut community. That makes everything you say highly suspect of at least being biased and in need of independent verification. By the way, of course this goes both ways, whatever I say should be highly suspect in the same way to you.

That is one positive outcome from a polarized subject, it sharpens the demand for legitimate evidence.

Quote:
In any case, I don't claim expertise in commercial transactions, banking laws, or the Federal Reserve system. I have only stated that I'm familiar with the way legal language signifies, and that "should" is not a word typically used in law to denote a legal requirement, failure to comply with which triggers sanctions.
No one have claimed that the absence of certain bank endorsement stamps ”triggers sanctions”. The only claim so far is that PMO’s according to federal regulations 1963 should have certain such stamps and that the Hidell PMO do not have such stamps on it.

When this issue is settled the next issue would be what this absence says of the authenticity of said PMO.

As long as these two issues continues to be conflated in the discussion there will be no end to it. Is this what you want?

Quote:
But you're the one with the burden to establish the legal significance of the language and its effect, if any,
Since I so far haven’t claimed any ”legal significance” of any sort or kind I have no ”burden” to establish such, do I?

Quote:
on Oswald's postal money order.
Oswald/Hidell alleged postal money order.

Quote:
I raise the following points as issues I think you will have to consider as you pursue your proof-gathering:

1. 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.
Yes it certainly was:
"Federal Reserve Financial Services are governed by the terms and conditions that are set forth in the following operating circulars."
Quote:
2. 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. (You should read the whole circular to get a feel for how "should" operates in the context of other wording.) These documents, in addition to occasional mandatory language, were setting goals, aspirational norms, and best practices for members.
You are continuing your conflation of the issue.

1. Do the federal regulations state that bank endorsing stamps should be present on PMO’s 1963?

2. If so, what could the absence of such say about the authenticity of the Hidell PMO?

It’s two separate issues. One at a time.

Quote:
3. It is worth asking whether Circular No. 4928 actually applied 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).
Whas it? How do you know?

Quote:
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?
All Postal Money Orders was regulated by the Federal Reserve Bank and had to be processed by at least one Federal Reserve Bank Branch.

Quote:
4. Once again, I'll suggest that "should" is different from "shall" or "must." It is advisory or recommendatory in tone rather than mandatory. "Should" implies a scenario in which existing practice has been observed to be uneven. "You should brush your teeth daily" suggests that the child is inconsistent. Failure to comply with a "should" would not likely trigger penalties.
Again, you are conflating two different issues. The issue at hand still is if it according to the federal regulations should be bank endorsing stamps on PMO’s 1963.

Yes or no.

Quote:
5. Let's say arguendo that you can prove that "should" was mandatory and that Oswald's money order lacked required stamps. It appears that the money order was honored anyway: Klein's was paid,
How do you know this?

Quote:
and Oswald, as Hiddell, received his purchase.
How do you know this?

Quote:
Bureaucracies often operate that way. We want our banking system to function and not be held up by the venial sins of bureaucrats.
No one have claimed that bureaucratic systems can’t make mistakes.

Quote:
6. If you think that the absence of stamps resulted from a bungled conspiratorial fabrication, you still have to prove the fabrication and the cover-up. Oswald's money order by itself does not do all that work for you. This is why I say that you have all your work in front of you.
Well, that’s what I keep repeating. One step at a time.

Do you agree that the federal regulations stated that certain bank endorsement stamps ”should” be present on all PMO’s 1963, absent on the Hidell PMO?

Yes or no.
__________________
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society" - John F. Kennedy
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 Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 12:11 PM   #5298
manifesto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,897
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
In a court room all the claims you have failed to support here, that evidence could have been tampered with, would have to be supported by evidence they *were* tampered with.
No. Absence of secured chain of custody alone is enough to make it invalid.

Quote:
This would fail.
In court the vague memories of people decades later would be tested by, not assumed more accurate than, the photographs and documents.
Agree. But this is not the case with all the testimonies taken in connection with the DPD/FBI/WC/Press shortly after the event.

Quote:
Your confidence in the case you posit to be a slam dunk in the courtroom suggests an ignorance of legal standards.
I’m not an expert on legal standards but I know some of it by reading what experts says.

On request from Oswalds mother, Mark Lane demanded to be present as Oswalds posthumous legal defence during the WC hearings, but was denied.

No cross examinations of witnesses. No in depth analysis of technical evidence. No alternative witnesses heard. No alternative technical evidence.

Shall or should I continue?

Where would you find a jury not tainted by DPD’s parading of Oswald in front of the national media day and night as the killer of JFK and officer Tippit before he was silenced by Jack Ruby in the DPD cellar in front of millions of TV viewers?

Albania?
__________________
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society" - John F. Kennedy

Last edited by manifesto; 9th June 2018 at 12:13 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 Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 12:20 PM   #5299
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,507
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
In court the vague memories of people decades later would be tested by, not assumed more accurate than, the photographs and documents.
Actually, they never would have been uttered in time for the trial whatsoever. Oswald's trial was a slam dunk and in early 1964, before any of those conspiracy books had been published, real defense lawyers wouldn't have passed off the absurdities that CTs attempt to push off on the unsuspecting public, like pretending 'should' means 'must' in a legal sense. They would have understood what would pass for a reasonable argument and what would be exposed as idiocy by the prosecution rather quickly. And they would not want to push the boundaries of idiocy (unlike CTs) for fear of losing the jury altogether. Don't insult the jury's intelligence.

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Your confidence in the case you posit to be a slam dunk in the courtroom suggests an ignorance of legal standards.
He's right to think it would be a slam dunk. He's just wrong on which way the jury would rule. He only understands the CT version of the chain of possession, where everyone who ever handled the item must swear up and down that the item is the one they handled, and if they can't attest to that with 100% certainty, why, the item is not admissible. He doesn't understand a chain can be established simply by the testimony of each person in the chain stating what they did with the item once they came into possession of it would also establish chain of possession. He also doesn't understand that items without a solid chain of evidence are still admissible at the discretion of the judge and it would be up to the jury to decide how much weight to put on it. He thinks if someone says 'I'm not sure that's the same bullet (or whatever) I handled on 11/22/63, it never gets before the jury. He's wrong and I'm pretty certain most everyone else understands that's not the way the real world works.

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

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 9th June 2018 at 12:42 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 12:29 PM   #5300
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,575
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No. Absence of secured chain of custody alone is enough to make it invalid.

Agree. But this is not the case with all the testimonies taken in connection with the DPD/FBI/WC/Press shortly after the event.

I’m not an expert on legal standards but I know some of it by reading what experts says.

On request from Oswalds mother, Mark Lane demanded to be present as Oswalds posthumous legal defence during the WC hearings, but was denied.

No cross examinations of witnesses. No in depth analysis of technical evidence. No alternative witnesses heard. No alternative technical evidence.

Shall or should I continue?

Where would you find a jury not tainted by DPD’s parading of Oswald in front of the national media day and night as the killer of JFK and officer Tippit before he was silenced by Jack Ruby in the DPD cellar in front of millions of TV viewers?

Albania?
Sorry, but no... you are not convincing me you know what standards would be applied, for the chain of custody, or otherwise.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 12:33 PM   #5301
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,827
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
You do agree that Sandy Larsen is an idiot for stupidly thinking "should" and "shall" are the same word, don't you ?
No. Point out where he thinks that.
Are you stating that Larsen is claiming that "should" is only aspirational and simply a recommendation?

Good. Then both Larsen's and your argument are baseless.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 12:33 PM   #5302
manifesto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,897
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Actually, they never would have been uttered in time for the trial whatsoever. Oswald's trial was a slam dunk and in early 1964, before any of those conspiracy books had been published,
There was no trial for Oswald. He didn’t even got legal assistance when arraigned before summary executed by a liaison between the Mob and DPD in the cellar of DPD HQ.

Quote:
real defense lawyers wouldn't have passed off the absurdities that CTs attempt to push off on the unsuspecting public, like pretending 'should' means 'must' in a legal sense.
Where do anyone ”pretending ’should’ means ’must’ in a legal sense”?

You just makes it up as you go, don’t you Hank?

Quote:
They would have understood what would pass for a reasonable argument and what would be exposed as idiocy by the prosecution rather quickly.
What would be exposed as ”idiocy”, Hank?

Name it.

Quote:
And they would not want to push the boundaries of idiocy (unlike CTs) for fear of losing the jury altogether. Don't insult the jury's intelligence.

Hank
Well, we will never know, will we? No jury. No legal defense. No independent criminal investigation.

Just shameless people like you, licking up to power.
__________________
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society" - John F. Kennedy

Last edited by manifesto; 9th June 2018 at 12:48 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 Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 12:43 PM   #5303
manifesto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,897
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Are you stating that Larsen is claiming that "should" is only aspirational and simply a recommendation?

Good. Then both Larsen's and your argument are baseless.
No, I’m claiming that nowhere in the thread is Larsen conflating ’should’ with ’shall’.

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

I agree.

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

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

Well, it depends on how common it was that this regulation was followed.
__________________
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society" - John F. Kennedy

Last edited by manifesto; 9th June 2018 at 12:48 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 Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 12:47 PM   #5304
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 870
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No, I’m claiming that nowhere in the thread is Larsen conflating ’should’ with ’shall’.

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

I agree.

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

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

Well, it depends on how common it was that this regulation was followed.
This is moot as the money order was paid. Still jousting with windmills?
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 Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 12:47 PM   #5305
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,339
It was cashed. Derail over.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 01:00 PM   #5306
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,507
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
You may well be an expert on the issus at hand but that doesn’t exclude you from having to provide evidence in support of your statements.



Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
When this issue is settled the next issue would be what this absence says of the authenticity of said PMO.
Asked and answered. It's settled. Should doesn't mean mandatory or required. Shall means mandatory or required. Should means optional but recommended.

Should does not mean shall. Recommended does not mean mandatory. Did you click on the links I provided? I warned you about those, so perhaps you stayed away.



Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Oswald/Hidell alleged postal money order.
It bears his handwriting. It uses his known alias. It is enclosed with an order for a weapon to be shipped to his PO box. He was photographed with that weapon that was shipped to his PO box, and the weapon bears his fingerprints and palm print. It's his postal money order, as much as you want to deny that, it doesn't change the facts any.


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
1. Do the federal regulations state that bank endorsing stamps should be present on PMO’s 1963?
Asked and answered. Yes, with the understanding that the legal definition of 'should' is 'recommended but not required'.


Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
2. If so, what could the absence of such say about the authenticity of the Hidell PMO?
Also asked and answered. It doesn't call the authenticity into question in any fashion because they were NOT mandatory.

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
Do you agree that the federal regulations stated that certain bank endorsement stamps ”should” be present on all PMO’s 1963, absent on the Hidell PMO? Yes or no.
Asked and answered for at least the third time now. Yes, with the understanding that the legal definition of 'should' is 'recommended but not required'.

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 Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 01:05 PM   #5307
manifesto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,897
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
It was cashed. Derail over.
Was it? How do you know?
__________________
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society" - John F. Kennedy
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 Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 01:06 PM   #5308
manifesto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,897
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
This is moot as the money order was paid. Still jousting with windmills?
How do you know it was ”paid”?
__________________
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society" - John F. Kennedy
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 Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 01:09 PM   #5309
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,507
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No, I’m claiming that nowhere in the thread is Larsen conflating ’should’ with ’shall’.

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

I agree.

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

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

Well, it depends on how common it was that this regulation was followed.
It also depends on what the meaning of 'should' is.

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

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

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

Hank
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 01:11 PM   #5310
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,507
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No, I’m claiming that nowhere in the thread is Larsen conflating ’should’ with ’shall’.
On the contrary, you and he are pretending 'should' means 'required' or 'must' but it doesn't.

It means 'recommended but optional'.

Hank
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 01:18 PM   #5311
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,507
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
How do you know it was ”paid”?
William Waldman testified Klein's made a deposit of $13,827.98 on March 13th, 1963, of which one of the items was a deposit of 21.45. The money order from "A. Hidell" (Oswald's known alias) in the amount of #21.45 passed through their system on that day, March 13th, and would have been deposited to the bank on that day (the idea in business is to book sales as quickly as possible and pay vendors as late as possible).

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

Seecondly, unlike your conspirators, Klein's didn't have an unlimited budget. They weren't in the habit of shipping goods halfway across the country for free. Waldman testified that the amount was enclosed with the order. That means they got paid.

== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show arts' serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a price shown for that?
Mr. WALDMAN. Price is $19.95, plus $1.50 postage and handling, or a total of $21.45.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see another number off to the left. What is this number?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number that you referred to, C20-T750 is a catalog number.
Mr. BELIN. And after that, there appears some words of identification or description. Can you state what that is?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number designates an item which we sell, namely, an Italian carbine, 6.5 caliber rifle with the 4X scope.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm record?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the date of shipment was March 20, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show by what means it was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle around the letters "PP."
Mr. BELIN. Does it show if any amount was enclosed with the order itself?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the amount that was enclosed with the order was $21.45, as designated on the right-hand side of this order blank here.
Mr. BELIN. Opposite the words "total amount enclosed"?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
== UNQUOTE ==

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

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 9th June 2018 at 01:30 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 01:19 PM   #5312
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 870
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
How do you know it was ”paid”?
Because LHO got the merchandise, very simple if you think about it instead of jousting with windmills
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 Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 01:35 PM   #5313
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 12,571
Mod Info Please go here for all your continuation needs.
Posted By:Agatha
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 05:31 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.