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

[manifesto]

Still Begging the Question and Shifting the Burden of Proof. You are claiming the money order is not legitimate. You need to establish it is not legitimate. You need to cite for the claim that banks have to endorse money orders.

#48 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​

Go ahead.

Hank

I agree and I will, no worries. I’m just curious to see if smartcooky actually have any evidence of his claim that there was no need of bank endorsment stamps on money orders 1963, or if he/she just made it up and runned with it.

I think I’ll wait a little bit more to see what happens. Should be fun.

 

[JayUtah]

Be specific and while you are at it, provide the regulations from the 1963 time period that says that money orders did not have to be endorsed by the banks it went through.

You're asking for proof of a negative, and you're reversing the burden of proof. Let's say I offered the premise that architectural drawings in 1963 had to be stamped by the county building inspector in order to be valid, but I provided no evidence that this was ever the case. Then I showed a drawing that lacked the ostensible stamp and claimed it to be fake. Your request is tantamount to asking for county building regulations that specifically say no stamp is necessary. If there really never was any sort of requirement, it would be silly for a set of regulations to affirmatively disclaim that specific need. The set of spurious requirements is infinite, and it's irrational to expect them all to be disclaimed affirmatively.

It's a common but fallacious argument to ask general sources to individually refute specific claims, and expect to hold the claim if no refutation is found.

 

[Axxman300]

Are you commenting on an article you have not read? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12315803&postcount=4378

Why am I not suprised.

I did read it, it was hilarious. She should write UFO stuff, she's a natural with flexible "facts".

 

[RoboTimbo]

Cite ONE thing I have made up

I will, no worries.

You seem to be a bottomless well of made-up-ness.

 

[bknight]

No. I provide additional information when requested to do so.

That’s the way it works.

You haven't yet, why should we believe that you will "in the future"?

 

[Axxman300]

LBJ was instrumental in the cover up of the assassination and that in a way that lead to the inescapable conclusion that he was in on it from the get go.

A plot of this magnitude can’t possibly succeede with an outsider in the White house.

And RFK was his Attorney General until he was elected Senator on September 3, 1964. You have just accused RFK in being an accomplice in the cover-up of his brother's murder.

Impressive.

 

[HSienzant]

I agree and I will, no worries. I’m just curious to see if smartcooky actually have any evidence of his claim that there was no need of bank endorsment stamps on money orders 1963, or if he/she just made it up and runned with it.

I think I’ll wait a little bit more to see what happens. Should be fun.

So yet another, "I'll get to the evidence, but not right now" disclaimer.

I've been waiting for you to get to the evidence for the money order for 30 months. When do you intend to start?

From December 22 - 23, 2015:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11044963&postcount=580
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11045829&postcount=587
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11046072&postcount=593

And here's an interesting one with remarkable insight:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11057607&postcount=610

30 Months later, he's still doing it.

Hank

 

[carlitos]

Everything I claim is supported with good evidence. I present it in due qourse.



You are a quite numerous congregation. Be patient. One at the time. Nobody left behind.

When the student is ready, the teacher appears.

 

[smartcooky]

I read your postal regulations but they seem to be from 2004? Correct?

How about 1963?

I have some information from 1967, IMO, that is close enough

https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu...le.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3600&context=clr

Even though at one time all postal money orders were payable only at post office branches, they have long been collected through banking channels, as
is evident from the cases already considered. And to promote such a collection procedure, which obviously inures solely to the benefit of the Government, bank stamps are not treated as indorsements.

In later forms the payee was named, as were the drawer and drawee post offices. The form in use today (as in 1967) contains the stamped name of the issuing post office, the issuer's initials, and the name of the payee; but the drawee is omitted. Presumably, the unnamed drawee is now the Post Office Department instead of any local post office.

This happens when the money order is banked instead of cashed

U.S.C. § 5104, The statement on the money order recites:

PAYEE MUST ENDORSE BELOW ON LINE MARKED 'PAYEE". OWNERSHIP OF THIS ORDER MAY BE TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER PERSON OR FIRM IF THE PAYEE WILL WRITE THE NAME OF SUCH PERSON OR FIRM ON THE LINE MARKED 'PAY TO" BEFORE WRITING HIS OWN NAME ON THE SECOND LINE. MORE THAN ONE ENDORSEMENT IS PROHIBITED BY LAW. BANK STAMPS ARE NOT REGARDED AS ENDORSEMENTS.
Now its pretty clear that in 1967, bank stamps were not considered endorsements. Bank stamps were only used when the Payee actually presented themselves to cash the money order. When money order was banked into the Payee's account, stamps were not required or used. The Federal Reserve System printed the Treasury File Locator Number (top left in the front of the money order) so the existence of that number is proof that the money order was banked.

USC 5104 was amended in 1959 and the next time it was amended was 1971, so it was in force as shown here in 1963.

 

[smartcooky]

So yet another, "I'll get to the evidence, but not right now" disclaimer.

I've been waiting for you to get to the evidence for the money order for 30 months. When do you intend to start?

From December 22 - 23, 2015:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11044963&postcount=580
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11045829&postcount=587
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11046072&postcount=593

And here's an interesting one with remarkable insight:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11057607&postcount=610

30 Months later, he's still doing it.

Hank

Oh, and I should mention that John Armstrong is flat out wrong. He claims that ALL money orders were hand stamped on payment. This is simply untrue.

Only money orders where the payee (or an authorised representative) personally presented themselves at the Post Office counter, or bank teller, to take the money in cash, were stamped. In all cases where the money order was banked into a bank account without actual cash being handled, no stamp was necessary, nor was it used. The keypunch/data entry operator would process these money orders and it was at that point that the Treasury File Locator Number was printed on the top left of the front side of the money order. The existence of that number is positive proof that the money order was banked into someone's account.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Do you understand that the images you cite are from 15 years after the fact?

How accurate are recollections then, in general?

Hank

That the doctors put the marks in more than one place should suggest that memory is a poor record.

It is why photographs and notes are taken.

People just get things wrong.

 

[Hans]

Cite ONE thing I have made up, Hans.

If not, I’ll start listing all the lies you have been cought pants down telling.

Your wrong reply about your made up conspiracy folks.

You know that silly stuff you keep pretending.

Please do and we'll keep noting that you never post evidence but always say you will.

pants on fire dude

 

[Hans]

Everything I claim is supported with good evidence. I present it in due qourse.

You are a quite numerous congregation. Be patient. One at the time. Nobody left behind.

History and reality notes that you don't you simply make up stuff and never deliver.

You will never provide the evidence because that then puts in a position of being shown to be wrong. You want to deny OTHER people's evidence.

 

[Hans]

No. I provide additional information when requested to do so.

That’s the way it works.

Oh no making stuff up again huh...lol

 

[Hans]

Well good we now know that either Micah or Manifesto is wrong. However I will predict that they are both wrong with manifesto being so wrong that the intellect police will come along and cite him for public wrongness.

 

[Axxman300]

The JFK-CT is a lot like the flat-earth stuff.

Science can't be trusted for some reason, and so they believe only what they think they see.

You can have just one gunman - Oswald - in Dealey Plaza and still have a viable conspiracy because by definition it just takes one other person to be in on the act in some supporting way.

It's not as sexy as a second gunman, where these guys can weave wild stories of circus act-shooting skills, and CIA goon squads, and that is why the simpler theories are ignored. Plus it kills some of these guys to admit that Oswald was the shooter since it means a sad-sack loser killed the President, and not some faceless cabal.

 

[MicahJava]

Do you understand that the images you cite are from 15 years after the fact?

How accurate are recollections then, in general?

Hank

see this:

We know that the official evidence has the cerebellum and brainstem somewhat damaged, tissue slides were taken, and that the doctors said they believed that the damage was caused "by the bullet" and not something post-mortem. These tissue samples were known to exist prior to them being lost. There is further physical evidence for the EOP wound in the form of the lower neck tissue cavity and a possible bullet fragment in the mid-neck area on the x-rays. The open-cranium photographs also require extensive reconsideration.

But here is a top 10 list of documentary evidence for the EOP wound, no later than 1969, in chronological order:

1. the face sheet

2. the 2 AM 11/23/1963 FBI teletype

3. the Rydberg drawings

4. Humes WC testimony

5. Finck WC testimony

6. Kellerman WC testimony

7. Finck Blumberg Report

8. 2/10/1967 Finck letter stating that photographs of the surface of the entry in the skull were not present.

9. The line from Manchester's The Death of a President
"The last bullet has torn through John Kennedy’s cerebellum, the lower part of his brain"

10. Finck Clay Shaw testimony

 

[HSienzant]

see this:

We've gone over this.

What was the measurement (in inches or cm or mm) provided in the earliest document for how high above the EOP the wound was?

Once we have that, we can compare to the HSCA finding.

Hank

 

[traxy]

see this:

It's a difference of 2 or 3 inches at the most. Not a big deal.

 

[manifesto]

It's a difference of 2 or 3 inches at the most. Not a big deal.

Opposite side of the back of the head is as big at it gets, on the back of the head.

Do not confuse scale with context.

Scaled up, the same difference would be that of living in Tokyo claiming that you live ”slightly north of Melbourne”.

Stop being silly, Traxy.