• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
traxy said:
Your claim, your burden of proof.

You're saying the lack of a stamp invalidates the money order as evidence. Prove it.
Click to expand...
So so, nice and easy. Lets wait to see if smartcooky actually has any evidence of his/her claim, or if he/she just like to post nice photos of big and mighty machines.

Be patient.
 
manifesto said:
Hank. I have told you not to post quotes from me answered with quotes from me. Yes I know, you feel very clever by doing this. Like being on top of things. But, no, this is not clever, it is just plain silly, revealing a certain kind of intellectual delincuency.
Click to expand...

No, Hank's actions show quite clearly that you ;) cannot keep your story straight and that you ;) demand of others things that you ;) yourself steadfastly refuse to supply.

Therefore, I strongly encourage Hank to keep doing what he is doing. If you ;) don't like it, tough! You ;) know what you need to do.

PS: I hope you ;) like my blue smileys... I borrowed some from RoboTimbo
 
Last edited:
manifesto said:
So so, nice and easy. Lets wait to see if smartcooky actually has any evidence of his/her claim, or if he/she just like to post nice photos of big and mighty machines.

Be patient.
Click to expand...

manifesto said:
So, where is your evidence of these punch holes being sufficient instead of the three banks endorsing the order with stamps?

Regulations?
Click to expand...

OK, here are the Regulations

https://pe.usps.com/Archive/PDF/DMMArchive20041209/S020.pdf

2.0 CASHING MONEY ORDERS
Validity and Value
2.1
Domestic money orders are paid regardless of the time passed since their issue.
Money orders are not interest-bearing instruments; they are paid only in the exact amount imprinted up to the authorized maximum amount. USPS records serve as the basis for adjudicating claims for payment of money orders.

Redemption
2.2
All U.S. money orders, including military, may be cashed at any U.S. post office or bank. Subject to funds availability, money orders may be cashed by rural carriers.

Identification
2.3
When presenting a money order for payment, the customer seeking payment must sign in the presence of a USPS employee. If the customer is not known to the employee, suitable identification can be required. The USPS may refuse payment on any money order when the identity of the customer seeking payment is not proved to the satisfaction of the employee.

No stamp is required at the time of paying (you can check the rest of the regulation if you like, but a word search does not reveal "stamp" anywhere else except in reference to "stamped signatures" and "postage stamps").


Acceptable Signature
2.4
The paying post office may accept any signature of the payee, purchaser, or
endorsee that is not different from the name shown on the money order, subject to
these conditions:

b. All money orders payable to a business firm, an organization, society,
institution, or government agency must be signed in the name of the
organization by an authorized representative (who must also sign with his or
her own name and organizational title). Evidence of the representative’s
authority may be required.

e. A stamped signature is an acceptable endorsement on a money order drawn
in favor of a firm, corporation, association, society, or individual, when the
money order is presented to a bank for payment. A post office accepts a
stamped signature only if an agreement is on file specifying the individual
responsible for the correctness of such payments.

This makes perfect sense. When the Payee is a business, they would not take cheques and money orders to the post office or bank and cash them and then bank the cash, they would bank them directly into their own bank account. They are listed on a deposit slip and bundled with it. The bank would then clear the whole bundle as a batch, which is where the key punch operator would come in (remember, this is 1963 and MICR encoding of cheques was only just being introduced). Klein's Sporting Goods was a fairly large business, advertising all over the USA, they would likely have banked hundreds of cheques and money orders each day.
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
There it is again - the claim that the dictabelt identifies not only that there was a shot but the exact (within a square yard) position from which it came.

But ....

that means that there must have been FOUR shots from the exact same position of the 6th floor of the SBD, with two of them coming within about 1 second of each other. How could that happen? Where is the weapon capable of firing two shots this close together on the 6th floor of the SBD? Or where is the extra weapon? (note: it can't be two shooters because the position is identified to within a square yard, right? So if it's two shooters they are standing on top of each other)

Now, for those unaware, BBN associates were well aware of this problem. That is why they didn't argue that there had to be 4 shots from the SBD, and they concluded that one of the impulses detected must have been random noise. So much for that 1/100000 probability making it unlikely to be something other than a shot. IOW, the people who did the acoustic analysis don't have a problem acknowledging that false positives can happen.

Manifesto hasn't addressed this. In fact, if you look at the comments provided, he only describes the other 4 shots as coming "from behind." Not from a 1 square yard position, but just in general "from behind." Because there is no way to support two shots from the same position separated by 1.2 seconds, or whatever that gap is.
Click to expand...
I have adressed this a multitude of times. The shot from the knoll was ALSO investigated with a sonar analysis which provided a more detailed and exact sets of data, not provided by the binary correlation analysis done by BBN.

The reason for doing this sonar analysis only on the shot from the knoll was its potential political repercussions and that no one has ever denied that shots were (also) fired from behind.

So, the 4 shots from behind are not pinned down to the ’snipers nest’, only from that general direction. Could be more gunmen in TSBD. Could be gunmen in additional buildings. Could be from an automated rifle.

One thing is clear. A single shooter could not have fired all four shots from behind with a bolt action rifle.

This is the reason for Robert Blakeys interference in the acoustic investigation:
"The entry in Table II that occurred at 140.32 sec is a false alarm, because it occurred only 1.05 sec later than earlier correlations also obtained from the TSBD. The rifle cannot be fired that rapidly. Since there are three correlations plausibly indicating the earlier shot, the one occurring 1.05 sec later must be a false alarm."​

This is as you all (should) know, circular reasoning in service of pre conceived ideas of what the investigation should discover.


Telelogical reasoning with ’Lone Nut Oswald’ as the Prime mover, sucking reality in place.

Holy.
 
manifesto said:
Have you EVER answered a question to anyones satisfaction outside the holy Mighty Church of the Looney Nutters?
Click to expand...

Yes, and that means I beat you hands down.

So when are you going to stop running and show us how you came up with all your evidence free assertions?

Did you do actually do research? Then show it.

Did you just make stuff up?

or

Did you just believe what another CT'er told you?

;)
 
JayUtah said:
No, he's the one bringing up practical details and actual requirements. In response, you offer up the plot of an amateur spy novel. "Oh, it was just really that secret." Sweeping all the important details -- for which you have no evidence -- under the carpet of Big Scary Police State fantasies doesn't really make your argument the stronger one.

Have you ever held a U.S. security clearance? Have you ever worked in a field that required operational security of the type practiced in the United States? I'm asking these questions to assess your ability to determine what's plausible or not within the framework of U.S. security protocols.
Click to expand...
No, I haven’t. Have you?
 
manifesto said:
[snip]
How many witnesses reported seeing this guy?

[qimg]http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/nix2.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/nix3.gif[/qimg][qimg]http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/nix1.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

No because there is no guy there. Wait it might be Badge Man or Hard Hat Man, anyone else I missed?
You appear to see objects that aren't real and have no bearing on the subject matter.
 
manifesto said:
No, I haven’t.
Click to expand...

Then what is your basis for the claims made here?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12315030#post12315030

You seem to be implying that you have a better understanding of the U.S. intelligence community than Hans, and can speak with some authority about its methods, practices, and capabilities, such that you are able to simply counter his concerns with some sort of personal knowledge or understanding. Please lay a foundation for that purported understanding.
 
manifesto said:
So, where is your evidence of these punch holes being sufficient instead of the three banks endorsing the order with stamps?

Regulations?
Click to expand...

Negative. Where is your evidence of the necessity of three banks endorsing the money order with stamps? You still have it exactly backwards. You must establish the need for the stamps before you can complain about the lack of the stamps.

Go do that. We don't have to do that for you. We'll wait.

#40 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​
Hank
 
Last edited:
manifesto said:
Was the yellow patches on the south curbstones still there? The newly painted patches visible at the time of the assassination nobody knew the reason for being there?
Click to expand...

Yellow paint along the curb in my neighborhood typically designate "no parking". How about in yours? Please cite the evidence they were 'newly painted. Please cite the evidence they had a nefarious purpose. Please cite the evidence the hired guns were so dumb they needed markers along the roadway to know when to shoot. Why wouldn't a simple walk-through and the instruction, "Once he turns the corner here, it's okay to start shooting" suffice?
#41 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​

manifesto said:
Exactly where the shooting took place?
Click to expand...

Exactly?
#42 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​

manifesto said:
How many witnesses reported seeing this guy?
Click to expand...

What guy? Conspiracy theorists have been claiming to see things in the photos and films for 54 years. According to them, there must be at least five shooters in the vicinity of the knoll.
#43 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​

We're up to 43 claims by you with no evidence. Awfully funny that someone who proclaims his reason for posting here is for "Providing the evidence that points to the Truth", that you would find time to post everything but evidence.

Hank

PS: I've only been counting since 6/3/2018
 
Last edited:
bknight said:
No because there is no guy there. Wait it might be Badge Man or Hard Hat Man, anyone else I missed?
Click to expand...

Black Dog Man.
Shooting from atop the car man.
Shooter in the bush man.
Umbrella man with his flechette.
Storm Drain Man.


bknight said:
You appear to see objects that aren't real and have no bearing on the subject matter.
Click to expand...

CTs have been doing that for 54 years. No reason 2018 should be any different.

Hank
 
Last edited:
bknight said:
No because there is no guy there. Wait it might be Badge Man or Hard Hat Man, anyone else I missed?
You appear to see objects that aren't real and have no bearing on the subject matter.
Click to expand...
So, what is that pops up behind the fence?
 
manifesto said:
So, what is it that pops up behind the fence?
Click to expand...

Another whack-a-mole argument by you?

Another Begging the Question by you?

Another Logical Fallacy by you?

You're looking at an image with a lot of motion blur taken from a distance that isn't effectively stabilized and freezing it on one frame so that it looks like something popped up. But with the motion blur and the unenhanced image, it could be nothing more than photographic artifact. Like the supposed image showing a shooter in the sixth floor window from a different film.

Show that something pops up behind the fence. Eliminate other possibilities like photographic artifact.
#44 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​
Rather than looking at the supposed whack-a-mole 'guy', look at the white car in the background and notice how it changes shape. Or the white blur underneath your supposed 'guy' in front of the fence. That white blur changes shape in every image.

Do you think the car or the white blur is really moving about and shape-shifting like that, or do you understand that it's motion blur and photographic artifact?

Ditto with the dark shape on the other side of the image. Ditto with your supposed 'guy'.

Hank
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Then what is your basis for the claims made here?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12315030#post12315030

You seem to be implying that you have a better understanding of the U.S. intelligence community than Hans, and can speak with some authority about its methods, practices, and capabilities, such that you are able to simply counter his concerns with some sort of personal knowledge or understanding. Please lay a foundation for that purported understanding.
Click to expand...
I asked if you have such experiences. Keen to answer?

It’s a give and take game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom