|
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, 08:51 PM | #81 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
9th June 2018, 09:04 PM | #82 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
|
9th June 2018, 09:05 PM | #83 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
|
9th June 2018, 09:06 PM | #84 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
9th June 2018, 09:10 PM | #85 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 472
|
You have proof of this, right?
Of course you don't. Ignored. Funny you should mention that. The photographic panel of the HSCA looked into that very thing. You know, the report I've linked you to a half a dozen times now. Guess what they found? The photos are legit, untouched originals. They found a negative of one of the photos in the Oswald's possessions, and it was matched to the Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera to the exclusion of all other cameras. Microscopic abrasions and scratches on the negative proved it. If you had read the report I've linked, you'd know this already. Do you have any evicence the handwriting was faked? Of course you don't. Ignored. Look at where we are. Right back where we started. A photograph authenticated by a panel of unimpeachable experts as legitimate, showing Lee Harvey Oswald posing with the weapon that killed JFK, a photo he graciously signed for a friend as attested by a panel of handwriting experts. |
9th June 2018, 09:31 PM | #86 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,302
|
You asked what the purpose of the recommendation is, and I told you what its purpose is. All you are doing now is what you have been doing for as long as you have been on this forum, and that is playing stupid little word games as you try to avoid acknowledging the answers you are given because you don't like them - and the reason you don't like than is because they don't fit into your fantasy world.
So, for the sake of clarity, I will explain this to you again The purpose of this recommendation is twofold #1. To indicate to the Federal Reserve (hereinafter called "the Fed) that the PMO has been received by the correct payee, and that the correct payee and been paid, and #2. To allow the Fed to trace a possible fraudulent document back through the banking system to its source. In order to accomplish #1 above, all that is required is some kind of stamp to indicate that the payee has received his money. a. If the payee presents himself personally to be paid out in cash, then they must show identification to prove they are the boda-fide payee, and if the person at the counter is satisfied with the ID, then they will endorse the PMO with the paying authority's stamp. If the paying authority is a bank, then that stamp will be the official stamp of the bank. If the paying authority is a branch of the USPS, that stamp will be the official stamp of that branch of the USPS. If the paying authority is convenience store, a grocery store, a general store or some other authorised check-cashing location, it will be stamp of that paying authorityIn order to accomplish #2 above, all that is required is some kind of stamp to on the document to allow the Fed to trace it back to its origin. In the case of a cashed PMO, the stamp allows it to be traced back to the bank, USPS branch, convenience store, general store, check cashing location or other paying authority who paid out the payee, and In the case of a banked PMO, the stamp allows it to be traced back to the company that banked it into their account, and the bank that accepted it. Now, I'm not playing your stupid game any more. If you keep asking this question (a question you now KNOW the answer to) then what you read above will simply be copied and pasted as the answer. |
__________________
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, 09:49 PM | #87 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
No. My purpose is to show you that your evidence is not proof.
Quote:
In short, photographs and other documents are often relatively easy to fake and are therefore NOT per definition proof of anything. It has to be weighed against the sum of ALL evidence before making any conclusions. 1. I’m open to the possibility that it is the real Oswald in the photos holding the alleged murder weapon in his hand. But I highly doubt it. 2. IF it is Oswald it is NOT proof of him shooting JFK. He could have had the photos taken for reasons not known, and borrowed it and the pistol and the clothes from the people framing him as a patsy. 3. I’m open to the possibility that it is a forgery, and I’m not convinced of the conclusions made by neither the HSCA experts or anyone else. I know one thing, however. It was this photo more than anything else that convicted Oswald as the assassin of JFK in the public eye, weeks after the event. That is called, perception management, big business in the US then and even more so, today.
Quote:
Quote:
The fact that a panel of experts couldn’t find any proof of such fake is not proof of no fake. Back to the alleged Hidell PMO and what the absense of any bank endorsement stamps prominent on both sides, says about its authenticity. If it can be shown that: 1. The PMO have NOT been processed in the way necessary for a purchase to go through, Oswald did not purchase the alleged murder weapon and therefore didn’t own it. 2. If the PMO is invalid, someone must have fabricated it in order to frame Oswald for the assassination of JFK. Game over for Lone Nutters. That is, the issue of the ”Back Yard Photo” becomes mute and pure academic, IF the PMO can be shown to be invalid = fabricated = proof of conspiracy to frame Oswald for the assassination of JFK. |
9th June 2018, 09:54 PM | #88 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
|
9th June 2018, 09:56 PM | #89 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
These are the statements from just two of your posts. Hank answered, thusly And then you followed by this wall of text Hank has answered and you continue with the same questions. No one on this board can give you reasons why the regulation was written in the manner in which it was, quit asking that question. |
9th June 2018, 10:05 PM | #90 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
|
9th June 2018, 10:15 PM | #91 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
And yet it is proof.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[IMG][/IMG] |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
9th June 2018, 10:30 PM | #92 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
9th June 2018, 10:32 PM | #93 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
10th June 2018, 04:28 AM | #94 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 425
|
Juror Number Eight at full force. Just because you have an alternative explanation doesn't mean that said explanation is right.
As everyone else on this thread has been patiently telling you, you have to provide proof to support your alternative explanation. More than adequate proof has been given that the picture is real. Are you saying that Unknown Friend came by one day with a rifle and pistol and said, "Hey, Lee, let Mariana take some pictures of you with these so you can show what a dedicated revolutionary you are."? And poor dumb LHO said, "Why sure, Unknown Friend, whatever you say."? |
10th June 2018, 06:15 AM | #95 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
|
10th June 2018, 06:29 AM | #96 | ||
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
Again, my point is that the evidence is not proof since there are other possible and plausible alternative explanations.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1. The photos are fake. 2. The photos was taken on the initiative of Oswald where he borrowed the guns and clothes in order to bolster his ’legend’ as a Castro sympathiser and commie rebel and the plotters used the photos to frame him after the assassination. 3. The photos was taken on the initiative of his handler with the overt purpose to bolster his commie rebel-legend, but with covert purpose to frame him as the patsy to the upcomming assassination. Ergo. The photos are far from evidence/proof of Oswald assassinating JFK. |
||
10th June 2018, 06:32 AM | #97 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
|
10th June 2018, 06:34 AM | #98 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
10th June 2018, 06:40 AM | #99 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
|
10th June 2018, 06:49 AM | #100 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
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 |
|
10th June 2018, 06:58 AM | #101 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Asked and answered. Repeating the question after an answer has been given is poor argument. Rebut the answer, if you can. Or acknowledge you can't, and admit your argument has issues.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3&postcount=68 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0&postcount=86 Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
10th June 2018, 07:13 AM | #102 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
The key word in the above is PLAUSIBLE. You have no plausible alternatives that you can support with evidence and reasoned argument. Name one expert who examined the first-generation photographic materials who determined they were fake. Anyone can claim anything. It's a lot harder to find evidence to support those bogus claims. That's where you fail. Fail. Why would he have to borrow the gun and the clothes? The gun was shipped to his PO Box. You haven't established the clothes were not his in March of 1963. Can you even make a lick of sense? How could photos taken in March frame him for an assassination in November when JFK's plans to visit Dallas weren't in the offing yet? When Oswald wasn't working in the Depository yet? Oh, that's right. You didn't list this one. In other words, you deliberately left off your list of possibilities the one explanation that has the most support and is the most reasonable. Why is that? Doesn't this make your list a logical fallacy of a false dilemma? Is that the fairest and most reasonable way to treat the subject? Or are you ignoring any contrary evidence just like all conspiracy theorist authors do? No own has suggested that. That's the LOGICAL FALLACY of a straw man argument. The photos are additional evidence of the rifle being ordered, and paid for, and purchased and possessed by Oswald after being shipped to his PO Box.Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
10th June 2018, 07:33 AM | #103 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Wait, what?
Are you acknowledging there is no requirement to have the bank stamps now? If you are acknowledging that, then we're done. The Money Order you've been quibbling about for over ten pages is legitimate, as far as we can tell, because it has everything required of it. Now you just asking why the requirements and why the recommendations? That's moving the goalposts. That's another LOGICAL FALLACY by you. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...-the-Goalposts Description: Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied refusing to concede or accept the opponent’s argument.You write: "The issue is now why this ”recommendation” was made in the federal regulations." And that's a totally separate issue unrelated to the assassination whatsoever. It's not germane to the assassination in any sense. That regulation you're asking about, after all, applied to all postal money orders, not just Oswald's. I suggest you take that issue and your questions concerning it to the 'historical legal regulations' section of this board. Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
10th June 2018, 07:57 AM | #104 |
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 |
|
10th June 2018, 08:01 AM | #105 |
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 |
|
10th June 2018, 08:42 AM | #106 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
But you do agree that Sandy Larsen was an idiot for conflating "should" and "shall" and then getting other naive CTs to believe it meant something?
Why did Oswald go on to murder Officer Tippit after assassinating JFK and then attempt to murder more officers in the theater with the same revolver? You have fled in panic every time I've asked the question. What are CTs so afraid of? Are typical CT arguments that weak? |
10th June 2018, 09:19 AM | #107 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 472
|
That was a truly valiant attempt at waving away a damning piece of evicence, but it's not going to work.
The backyard photos have never been seriously challenged as faked, not by anyone with any actual background in photography or photogrammetry. That rules out Jack White, Robert Groden and the other loonies on the Ed forums. The photos are legitimate images of Lee Harvey Oswald posing with the weapon that murdered JFK in March of 1963, the same month the rifle was shipped to Alek Hidell from Klein's Sporting Goods, one of which he signed the back of. If you want to claim the photos were part of some elaborate setup, you'll need to provide compelling evidence, which you don't have. We already know the circumstances under which the photo was taken thanks to Marina Oswald, and the matching of the negative to the Oswalds camera backs up her version of events. Now, with the legitimacy of the photo established beyond all doubt, it casts all the other evidence in a new light. Absent any compelling evidence of fakery, which you don't have, the paper trail connecting Hidell to the rifle is legitimate. The rifle was shipped in March of 63,Oswald possessed it in March of 63. Absent any evidence of fakery, which you don't have, the prints on the rifle have to be taken as legitimate. We have photographic proof of Oswald possessing and handling the rifle. Of course his prints would be on it. |
10th June 2018, 09:35 AM | #108 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 472
|
This possibility has been investigated and found to be without merit. The results of that investigation and the impeccable credentials of the investigators has been provided for you. The photos are not faked.
You have to provide evidence for this explanation to hold any weight. The photo was taken by his wife using their camera, the negative matched to it beyond all doubt by the photographic panel. Also, if this explanation were true, why did Oswald LIE to investigators when confronted with the picture? First, provide evidence Oswald had a "commie handler". You don't have it. Without a shred of evidence to back up your assertions as to what "might" have happened, we're left with taking the picture at face value. Lee Harvey Oswald posing with the weapon that killed JFK. |
10th June 2018, 10:54 AM | #109 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
What risk did the bank run by not putting their stamp on it? None. The money order has the vendor's name and account number on it. If the money order bounced for being falsified, they knew where they had to go to get their money back. What risk did the Fed run by accepting it? None. The money order had the bank name where it entered the Federal Reserve system on it, so the Fed could always go back to the bank where it entered the system and recover from the bank. What risk did Klein's run by accepting it? All the risk. That's a cost of doing business. If somebody passes a bad check, or uses counterfeit money, or falsifies a money order, then you hope to catch those if you can, but for those you don't catch, you can only recoup your losses by raising the pricing a couple of cents on everything else. What risk did Kleins run by refusing it? Losing business (and repeat business) from not only Oswald but anyone else who used money orders or checks to purchase stuff through the mail. Checks are only backed and secured by the amount of money in the checking account. Postal Money Orders are backed by the Post Office, which at the time was a federal department, not a quasi-public company. Mail Order business was HUGE back then (the Sears catalog alone was over 500 pages) and people purchased plenty of items via mail order. If you don't accept checks and money orders for mail orders, you don't have a money order business (credit cards were in their infancy back then). You turn down money orders because of a few bad apples and you loss a good chunk of your business. And you could always recoup the cost of the bad apples by raising the price by a small amount. So you don't turn down money orders. Klein's didn't turn them down. Further, Klein's didn't have any say on whether the bank applied a bank stamp, and Klein's was accepting all the risk regardless of what the bank did. Once they accepted it and deposited it (and we saw William Waldman's testimony on this), it is out of their hands. The bank won't need to bother with stamps of their own because the Klein's stamp means they can recover from Klein's if they need to. There's no chance of the bank becoming poor by their failure to put their own stamp on the money order. Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
10th June 2018, 11:36 AM | #110 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,071
|
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post12317577
Quote:
Day eight of no evidence from manifesto Manifesto is now up to hundreds of claims with no evidence provided. We can now add to that another howler
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
10th June 2018, 11:43 AM | #111 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
|
10th June 2018, 11:47 AM | #112 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,071
|
|
10th June 2018, 11:51 AM | #113 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,071
|
Manifesto said here:
Quote:
Nope if you had the slightest knowledge of American history you would know that every important assassination in the US history has been obsessed over and volumes and volume of written material created going over ever detail. Again you pretend the conspiracy was done by complete idiots. Yet in your bizarro world those idiots are beating you and have so for 55 years. Well done Manifesto. Your opinion is rejected as childish. |
10th June 2018, 11:56 AM | #114 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
Joke White claimed they were fake and made a fool of himself showing he had about as much knowledge of photogrammetry as the typical CT, which was zero. A previous CT poster in this thread, Robert Prey , showed what an idiot he was by trying to cite Joke "What is this photogrammetry of which you speak" White. Joke White died having never lived down his embarrassment.
Quote:
CTs hate consilience but are powerless against it. Just look at your useless flailing. |
10th June 2018, 12:00 PM | #115 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
10th June 2018, 12:05 PM | #116 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,071
|
No I think he does. I suspect he's had enough experience to know that showing the evidence undermines what he says.
I also sense he is well aware that all he can do now is pretend his opinions are facts and constantly run from the real facts. We are seeing a CT in his terminal expression of his religious belief. All he has left our his unsupported beliefs in the CT and everything around him is faked, everything. |
10th June 2018, 12:16 PM | #117 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
So, why the ”recommendation” of having the stamps prominently on both sides of the PMO if completely superfluous?
Aesthetics?
Quote:
Aesthetics? This is how John Armstrong describes the reasons that the stamps ”should” be on PMO’s, 1963. ”Special punch-proof machines were developed and installed at each of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks and branches for handling the new money orders. Researchers should remember that during the 1950's and early 1960's (prior to April, 1962) the only punched holes that appeared on postal money orders, at the time of purchase, were those that identified the serial number of the money order (by computer code).That is, if the actors involved expected to have a secured processing of the PMO, this is what the federal regulation says they ”should” do. Kleins deposited thousands of PMO’s to its bank on a daily basis, but you are claiming the bank deposited all those PMO’s to a Federal Reserve Bank without endorsing them? And what about the Federal Reserve Bank’s and their endorsements? There is NO trace on the Hidell PMO of it having been duly processed in any way by any bank. How do you distinguish processed endorsed PMO’s from PMO’s that aren’t so, without a trace on neither of them of having been duly processed? Guessing? |
10th June 2018, 12:24 PM | #118 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
If you are talking of your carefully orchestrated barrage of crap thrown at me from day one, yes you should follow my example.
Responde to those posts that have some semblance of effort to provide substance first, and take it from there. Have YOU, Hans, produced one single post containing a single trace of substance in your attacks on me? One? Show me. |
10th June 2018, 12:26 PM | #119 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
10th June 2018, 12:40 PM | #120 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
|
I have asked the admin/mod multiple times how it can be that you are allowed to stalk and harass me with nonsense replies and little blue idiot smileys, day in and night out page after page since I began posting in the thread, but no answer.
One wonder why this is so. Do you know, RoboTimbo? |
Thread Tools | |
|
|