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

[Steve]

No, I’m spitting on those who show only contempt for a vigilant citizenry in a democracy, holding power accountable to the public.

People who’s basic reflexes are to lick up to power and ganging up on dissidents.

Cowards.

Are you a dissident?

 

[HSienzant]

No, I’m spitting on those who show only contempt for a vigilant citizenry in a democracy, holding power accountable to the public.

You're not a citizen of the U.S.A., by your own admission.

So what's with the arguments about the U.S.A.?

Wouldn't you be a better and more vigilant citizen in your own country? Or is your country perfect so your vigilance isn't needed there and can spill over to the U.S.A.?

And is there nothing wrong with the current U.S.A. such that you have to go back 54 years to find something to quibble about?

Hank

 

[cmikes]

I’m so happy for you finding joy in your predicament. You will need it in the years to come, when the official mythology begin to crack open on all fronts.

Good attitude.

Mark Lane, is that you? A long line of CT's have been going on about the "official mythology", or as some like to call it - reality, coming down for fifty years now. I, for one, am not holding my breath.

 

[HSienzant]

Mark Lane, is that you? A long line of CT's have been going on about the "official mythology", or as some like to call it - reality, coming down for fifty years now. I, for one, am not holding my breath.

Mark Lane was added to the mysterious deaths list on May 10, 2016, at the age of 89. The wicked State power structure and their unlimited budget finally got around to taking him down and silencing him forever. They gave him that drug that causes heart attacks.

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

...holding power accountable to the public.

People who’s basic reflexes are to lick up to power and ganging up on dissidents.

I can't imagine what "power" you think I'm "licking up to" by asking you questions about your theory. As far as "ganging up," you chose this forum knowing full well what reception you were likely to get. So stop trying to play the victim.

What I find hilarious is that you talk about holding people accountable, but you complain so loudly when anyone tries to hold you accountable. It's the one-sided application of accountability and the resulting hypocrisy that discourages anyone from taking you seriously.

Cowards.

...says the guy who's afraid to answer anyone's questions.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Cite ONE thing I have made up, Hans.

That’s the thing, Hans, I’m not a member of anything except my citizenship and humanity.

Do you even know how to tell the truth anymore?

You are a tithing member of the Church of the Holy "Anybody but Oswald".

 

[Hans]

I can't imagine what "power" you think I'm "licking up to" by asking you questions about your theory. As far as "ganging up," you chose this forum knowing full well what reception you were likely to get. So stop trying to play the victim.

What I find hilarious is that you talk about holding people accountable, but you complain so loudly when anyone tries to hold you accountable. It's the one-sided application of accountability and the resulting hypocrisy that discourages anyone from taking you seriously.



...says the guy who's afraid to answer anyone's questions.

As noted earlier his reason for being here is to, pretend he knows stuff, throw barbs at other people while at the same time avoiding the providing of any evidence that can in turn be criticized. He isn't here to discuss the evidence. His style is pretty obvious.

 

[Hans]

People who’s basic reflexes are to lick up to power and ganging up on dissidents.

Yet you lick up to those who put out ridiculous CT theories and do not demonstrate any skepticism towards them. Mindlessly following others ideas without questioning them is a sure sign of subservience and shows a weak understanding of the subject.

This is clearly demonstrated by your constant and ineffectual chronic lying to evade providing evidence.

However this is a futile effort by you as everyone here is quite aware of your rather observable defect.

 

[manifesto]

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.

I read through a thread on Education forum and from what I can see, Sandy Larsen pretty much wraps it up with this post: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/t...k-endorsements/?do=findComment&comment=319619

13. All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank

direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the

order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the

order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar

endorsement. Cash items will be accepted by us, and by other Federal

Reserve Banks, only upon the understanding and condition that all

prior endorsements are guaranteed by the sending bank. There should

be incorporated in the endorsement of the sending bank the phrase,

“ All prior endorsements guaranteed.” The act of sending or deliver*ing a

cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however,

be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty of all prior

endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is

incorporated in the sending bank’s endorsement. The endorsement of

the sending bank should be dated and should show the American

Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent

type on both sides.

———

As can be seen, The Agreement in this document is located in item #11, as opposed to a separate appendix.

THEREFORE...

Postal money orders required bank endorsement stamps in 1963.​

This is all very technical, but from were I stand, no one has been able to refute Sandy Larsens finding. Not in this thread anyway.

Bank endorsement stamps should be on both sides of the PMO but no such stamps are visible on Oswalds/Hidells alleged purchase of the alleged murder weapon.

1. Oswald/Hidell did not order the alleged murder weapon and did not own it.

2. The FBI/Holmes fabricated the PMO after the fact in order to frame Oswald for the assassination of JFK.

And, do not forget, this is just ONE little detail in the whole chain of documents and alleged actions that is wrong. All of it. Every single piece.

Wrong.

 

[smartcooky]

I've got two words for you: Trendelenburg position.

http://www.patspeer.com/reasontobelieve

Hank

I just spent the last hour and a half reading this, and what a fascinating read it was too.

Two things that really came to mind for me

Firstly, it is extraordinary how, then you actually read the WHOLE of the report of each person involved in either the autopsy or its aftermath, you get a far better overall picture of what they are describing, and you realise that NONE of the material (with one apparent exception) supports the JFK CT view. It supports one, and only one, entry wound in the back of the head, it supports the top right of the head being blown out, it supports the "single bullet" entry wound in the back and its exit out of the throat. Of course, that is how CT's like manifesto and micahjava work their deceptive rhetoric, by cherry picking a comment from here, a line from there, a sentence from somewhere else, while discarding anything that they know will pole-axe their theory.

Secondly, the one person (McLelland) whose reporting does appear to support the CT on first inspection, in fact does not do so when you analyse the other things he said in his reporting. In the position he was in (as described by himself) he could not possibly have seen the back of JFK's head, let alone examine this large wound he claims to have seen. This is another example of cherry picking only the data that supports your CT while suppressing that which does not.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Cite ONE MULTIPLE things I have made up

1. Oswald/Hidell did not order the alleged murder weapon and did not own it.

2. The FBI/Holmes fabricated the PMO after the fact in order to frame Oswald for the assassination of JFK.

And, do not forget, this is just ONE little detail in the whole chain of documents and alleged actions that is wrong. All of it. Every single piece.

Wrong.

You are a veritable fountain of made up crap. Don't you wish you could show any of it to be true rather than failing at everything you have done here?

 

[traxy]

The elephant in the livingroom is the absence in the x-rays of a big gaping wound in the right back of the head, reported by almost all of the almost 50 doctors, nurses and police agents who observed the head wounds close up between Elm Street - Parkland - Methodist H. (Harper fragment) - and the Bethesda Naval Hospital.

All these people could not be wrong. It is impossible.

Yes, they absolutely could be wrong, and are wrong.

First of all, multiple Parkland doctors have stated that, given the decimated and blood soaked state of Kennedy's head, determining entry and exit wounds in the trauma room was impossible.

Second, the condition of the skull in the x-ray matches what's seen in the autopsy photos, and the Nix film, and the Muchmore film, and the Moorman Polaroid, and the Zapruder film.

All of the photographic evidence is in perfect synchronicity. There was no gaping wound in the rear of the head.

 

[manifesto]

Mark Lane was added to the mysterious deaths list on May 10, 2016, at the age of 89. The wicked State power structure and their unlimited budget finally got around to taking him down and silencing him forever. They gave him that drug that causes heart attacks.

Hank

Lane got that question a couple of times and his answer was that he was too well known by the American public. He had a face and a voice.

 

[MicahJava]

Said the guy who was posting links to pirated material.

Yes...? That's what a guy who links pirated material should think. The flow of information is more important than asshurt over lost profit of books. If you try to sell me ones and zeroes that anybody can copy and share for free, don't get asshurt if you lose a sale. Hate the game not the player.

 

[JayUtah]

And, do not forget, this is just ONE little detail in the whole chain of documents and alleged actions that is wrong. All of it. Every single piece.

No, that's not at all how evidence works in the real world. If "one little detail" seems out of place in the face of a mountain of otherwise consistent and consilient evidence, it's far more parsimonious to conclude that the "one little detail" is wrong or misinterpreted than it is to throw out all the rest of the evidence in favor of it.

 

[smartcooky]

I read through a thread on Education forum and from what I can see, Sandy Larsen pretty much wraps it up with this post: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/t...k-endorsements/?do=findComment&comment=319619

13. All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank

direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the

order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the

order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar

endorsement. Cash items will be accepted by us, and by other Federal

Reserve Banks, only upon the understanding and condition that all

prior endorsements are guaranteed by the sending bank. There should

be incorporated in the endorsement of the sending bank the phrase,

“ All prior endorsements guaranteed.” The act of sending or deliver*ing a

cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however,

be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty of all prior

endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is

incorporated in the sending bank’s endorsement. The endorsement of

the sending bank should be dated and should show the American

Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent

type on both sides.

———

As can be seen, The Agreement in this document is located in item #11, as opposed to a separate appendix.

THEREFORE...

Postal money orders required bank endorsement stamps in 1963.​

This is all very technical, but from were I stand, no one has been able to refute Sandy Larsens finding. Not in this thread anyway.

Bank endorsement stamps should be on both sides of the PMO but no such stamps are visible on Oswalds/Hidells alleged purchase of the alleged murder weapon.

1. Oswald/Hidell did not order the alleged murder weapon and did not own it.

2. The FBI/Holmes fabricated the PMO after the fact in order to frame Oswald for the assassination of JFK.

And, do not forget, this is just ONE little detail in the whole chain of documents and alleged actions that is wrong. All of it. Every single piece.

Wrong.

Larsen is just another one of your loony CT mates, and member of the Order of the Bleeding Fruitcake. He's just a layman who knows nothing beyond what he can Google.

He even tried telling a Lawyer with over 37 years experience in Federal Law, how to read Federal Regulations, and then tells a banker (who works woth money orders every day) that he knows nothing about banking and money orders.

He made a big deal of quoting what he thought was applicable regulations, and then we find out the regulations he quoted related to bank transfer documents, not money orders.

I value his opinion less than I value yours, and I value yours not one bit.... zero.... nada.

Now you can quote all the JFK CT BS you like, the fact remains that the A Hidell/LH Oswald money order has a nine-digit File Locator Number stamped on the front... that is proof positive that this money order MUST have made it all the way to the Federal Reserve (the ONLY organisation allowed to stamp these numbers) therefore, the money order MUST have been banked, or it would not have got that far.

 

[MicahJava]

No, that's not at all how evidence works in the real world. If "one little detail" seems out of place in the face of a mountain of otherwise consistent and consilient evidence, it's far more parsimonious to conclude that the "one little detail" is wrong or misinterpreted than it is to throw out all the rest of the evidence in favor of it.

The rifle story is famous for not making any sense whatsoever.

 

[manifesto]

Yes, they absolutely could be wrong, and are wrong.

First of all, multiple Parkland doctors have stated that, given the decimated and blood soaked state of Kennedy's head, determining entry and exit wounds in the trauma room was impossible.

Don’t change the subject. Reporting a big gaping wound is not reporting an exit wound.

Second, the condition of the skull in the x-ray matches

Forgeries.

what's seen in the autopsy photos,

The very few photos from the back of the head could have been taken after the reconstruction of JFK’s head and body, making him presentable for the funeral.

and the Nix film, and the Muchmore film, and the Moorman Polaroid,

Too low resolution.

and the Zapruder film.

Maybe, maybe not. Hard to tell since the back of the head is in shadow through the whole event. As I’ve said earlier, there are suspicions that the back of the head could be paint put there in order to hide the big gaping wound. Maybe. It looks suspect, like a black patch.

All of the photographic evidence is in perfect synchronicity.

Just picked it apart.

There was no gaping wound in the rear of the head.

So, almost all of the almost 50 doctors, nurses and agents observing JFK’s headwounds close up had a psychosis?

An unknown virus?

 

[RoboTimbo]

The rifle story is famous for not making any sense whatsoever.

Explain. Cite. Argue (this time with evidence). Manifesto is too afraid.

 

[manifesto]

No, that's not at all how evidence works in the real world. If "one little detail" seems out of place in the face of a mountain of otherwise consistent and consilient evidence, it's far more parsimonious to conclude that the "one little detail" is wrong or misinterpreted than it is to throw out all the rest of the evidence in favor of it.

I think you didn’t understand what I wrote. The absence of regulated endorsing bank stamps on the PMO is evidence of it being fabricated.

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.