|
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. |
9th June 2018, 01:09 PM | #1 | ||
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
JFK Conspiracy Theories VII: Late November back in '63...
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...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 |
|||
9th June 2018, 01:11 PM | #2 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
9th June 2018, 01:18 PM | #3 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
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?== 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 |
|
9th June 2018, 01:19 PM | #4 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
|
9th June 2018, 01:26 PM | #5 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
|
9th June 2018, 01:27 PM | #6 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
|
9th June 2018, 01:28 PM | #7 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
|
9th June 2018, 01:40 PM | #8 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
That is very simple also, A. Hidell's hand writing on the MO was positively as LHO.
How many more posts/bandwidth are you going to continue this fruitless search for someone to answer your pointless questions. The money order was paid, LHO got the weapon used in the assassination, to the exclusion of every other weapon in existence. |
9th June 2018, 01:49 PM | #9 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
9th June 2018, 01:50 PM | #10 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
9th June 2018, 02:02 PM | #11 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
|
9th June 2018, 02:03 PM | #12 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
|
9th June 2018, 02:05 PM | #13 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
9th June 2018, 02:07 PM | #14 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
9th June 2018, 02:11 PM | #15 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
Photographs and Xerox copies of documents can’t be conclusively identified by analysing alleged handwriting.
Therefore the original is needed. Was it available to the hand writing experts consulted?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
9th June 2018, 02:12 PM | #16 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
|
9th June 2018, 02:13 PM | #17 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
9th June 2018, 02:14 PM | #18 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
|
9th June 2018, 02:14 PM | #19 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
9th June 2018, 02:15 PM | #20 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Larsen in that thread you or MicahJava linked to a few pages back.
You in this thread. Do you agree with the below? If not, why not: In a legal sense, 'should' doesn't mean mandatory. It means 'optional but recommended'. http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/a...abandon_shall/ https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=575768 "Edit: "should" means a person is "encouraged" to do something while "must" and "shall" mean they are required to do it." http://reqexperts.com/blog/2012/10/u...l-will-should/ Shall – Requirement: Shall is used to indicate a requirement that is contractually binding... Should – Goals, non-mandatory provisions. Should is used to indicate a goal... Hank |
__________________
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 |
|
9th June 2018, 02:16 PM | #21 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
What does all of the evidence in the Warren Commission Report say about it?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
9th June 2018, 02:18 PM | #22 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
9th June 2018, 02:20 PM | #23 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
Good. Settled.
Next question is, what does this mean considering the authenticity of the Hidell PMO. You are claiming that, since that word ”should” isn’t mandatory in a legal/judiciary sense, the absence of the regulated bank stamps on the Hidell PMO is NOT evidence of a forgery, correct? |
9th June 2018, 02:20 PM | #24 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
9th June 2018, 02:21 PM | #25 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,301
|
Yes, I agree that it "should" (that is what the regulations state) but it doesn't have to be. The Oswald/Hidell PMO was simply among the many that wasn't. In any case, there is plenty of other evidence that proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Oswald/Hidell money order was banked and cleared...
1. Stamped with Klein's endorsement stamp. 2. Banked by Klein's on March 13. 3. Processed through the First National Bank bank of Chicago's batch processing system. 4. Sent to the Federal Reserve who stamped it with their file locator number 5. Found by the FBI after a lengthy search What else is it going to take for you to accept that this was not forged, it was a genuine postal money order. |
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong. Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!! |
|
9th June 2018, 02:22 PM | #26 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
|
9th June 2018, 02:24 PM | #27 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
|
9th June 2018, 02:25 PM | #28 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
9th June 2018, 02:26 PM | #29 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
9th June 2018, 02:27 PM | #30 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
9th June 2018, 02:28 PM | #31 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
9th June 2018, 02:30 PM | #32 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
Hank answered the first question.
As to the second, I rely on evidence not the bare assertions you throw out on a daily basis. As to the third, of course not that evidence is stored away, but the ballistics evidence is available, all you have to do is search for it, so don't ask me to do your research by providing a citation. I sure if you searched any one these threads, you could find it/them. |
9th June 2018, 02:54 PM | #33 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
? What? Was he simply renting it? That claim gets you nowhere and still puts the rifle in LHO's hands. On top, you have precisely **** all evidence for such a claim.
You seem to be entirely innocent of how you self represent on the internet. Sure, AAH may exist on this particular site, but the also exists sites like the web archive, a site which I am a paid member of. Why would I pay to be a member of such a site? Easy. Folks like your try to pretend that they did not post what they posted. They simply do not get off the conspiratorial hook so easily. As they should not. |
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
9th June 2018, 03:25 PM | #34 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
|
9th June 2018, 03:33 PM | #35 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
9th June 2018, 03:39 PM | #36 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
I have been trying to establish that the federal regulations in 1963 stated that there should be bank endorsement stamps on PMO’s, stamps absent on the Hidell PMO.
This has taken a very long time, but is at last settled and agreed upon. Next step is, as I said, to see what this means regarding the authenticity of said Hidell PMO and I haven’t even started to argue this in any way. I guess that your earlier conflation of these two separate issues and your present preempting of arguments you believe I will present is somewhat signs of anguish? What is it that scare you with this Hidell PMO, Hank? Are we threading on dangerous ground threatening to collapse your decades long carefully constructed cognitive castle protecting you from Reality coming crushing in on all sides destroying your little kingdom of Faith? Why ’should’ bank endorsement stamps be present on both sides of the PMO? Why this ”suggestion/advise/recommendation” in the federal regulations? Do you know? |
9th June 2018, 03:41 PM | #37 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
|
9th June 2018, 03:43 PM | #38 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
9th June 2018, 03:45 PM | #39 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
9th June 2018, 03:46 PM | #40 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|