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

[HSienzant]

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.

It's endorsed to the bank.

On the back of the money order is stamped:

PAY TO THE ORDER OF
THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO
59-91144
KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.​

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

That stamp is sufficient for the Federal Reserve, should the money order be found to be fraudulent or altered, to get its money back from the FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO, and for the bank to get its money back from Klein's.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

What part of the phrase: "The act of sending or delivering 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" didn't you understand? It says the Fed will accept money orders without said endorsement (and pay them) and simply assume said endorsement.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

But they finally got him, after all. At the age of 89.

And 'fake heart attacked' him.

With their unlimited budget. Unlimited.

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

Jay, you'll find--as many of us have from bitter experience here--that manifesto will regularly accuse you of unspecified, abstract toadyism and of contributing to his martyrdom as a seeker of truth.

That's common among conspiracy theorists and other fringe claimants. It's all part of the experience in this particular arena of debate. I want to include this sort of observation in my book, but I have yet to meet with a psychologist who can guide me through the applicable literature.

Informally, what it looks like is a sort of reverse projection. Conspiracy theorists tend to distrust and dislike authority, and often can cite persuasive reasons for doing so. The outward manifestation of that distrust is conspiracism. But then they think -- not unreasonably -- that any objection to their claims must come from the diametrically opposed motivation: trust and love for authority. That's rarely the case. Skeptics don't oppose conspiracy theories because they love authority and trust the government. They oppose them mostly because they are poorly supported by evidence and poorly reasoned. Whatever the conclusion, skeptics are more enamored with the process of reasoning than by the implications of the conclusions reached. I personally don't care whether Oswald acted alone. I'm more interested in the process by which the competing claims are weighed, and that interest is motivated by fostering a society in which critical thinking is valued. I believe we would all benefit from that.

There's more to the psychology of conspiracism v. skepticism, of course, but the point at hand is that of course skeptics will be wrongly accused of being the friends of the enemy. It's easier to do that than to try to understand one's opponent and see where he's coming from.

 

[Hans]

When will this rapturous moment come? It's been 55 years and still no great fragmenting of the official mythology on one major front, let alone "all fronts." And what do you mean by "all fronts," a geo-military term?

Yeah and all the original conspirators are either well and truly dead while only a few remaining members, junior partners at best, would be very elderly too.

 

[HSienzant]

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

Correction: CT rifle stories make no sense whatsoever. But that's because they twist the truth trying to make an argument for conspiracy, and when they are finished, they have inherent contradictions in their stories that make no sense. Like lies liars tell, the contradictions reveal the problems with the CT stories.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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

Or a logical fallacy by you of a false dilemma?

https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/ultraterrestrials/

"Careful investigation of many supposedly conclusive UFO reports showed that witnesses had constantly misperceived mundane objects as flying saucers. This message was not well received by the UFO community."

UFOs, Big Foot and Nessie, along with the supposed JFK wound medical sources you reference (you're actually referencing JFK CT claims, which are not the same thing. We saw that with your knoll witnesses citation for the 52 witnesses, some of which you yourself admitted were wrong) all have this same problem. Witnesses are unreliable, and your sources are taking claims out of context to make it appear they all agree.

Hank

 

[Hans]

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.

So who were these idiots? Why would every single detail be wrong? Is any aspect of the preparation for this 'conspiracy' done right. Did they get every single detail wrong - is that the CT world view on this?

lol

 

[traxy]

Since I clearly stated that ALL pieces of evidence in the alleged Oswald/Hidell purchase of the Carcano is tainted and impossible, you clearly missed that since complaining of it as being ”one little detail”.

"stated" =/= "proven"

There is no proof at all that any portion of the paper trail is "tainted", and the overwhelming preponderance of evidence shows that each portion of the paper trail is legitimate.

 

[Hans]

But they finally got him, after all. At the age of 89.

And 'fake heart attacked' him.

With their unlimited budget. Unlimited.

Hank

Yeah those bastard are cleverly making all the JFK CT'ers die off using natural aging.......clearly they are monsters.

 

[HSienzant]

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

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

Forgeries.

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

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.

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

Too low resolution.

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

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.

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

Just picked it apart.

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

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

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

Hank

 

[Hans]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/8kK8ZOE.jpg[/qimg]

This is day three of no evidence from manifesto

This post will be reposted each day until the questions are answered to H's satisfaction.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12315185&postcount=4285

 

[HSienzant]

You wrote:

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.​

Since I clearly stated that ALL pieces of evidence in the alleged Oswald/Hidell purchase of the Carcano is tainted and impossible, you clearly missed that since complaining of it as being ”one little detail”.

You raised the one little detail initially of the missing bank endorsement stamps. Your cite was to a forum post by a CT named Sandy Larsen, apparently. He's not an expert in money orders, federal law, or anything. That one little detail you raised has been shown to be false.

You also argued for, but cited no evidence for, 'all the evidence is similarly flawed'. But since your one cited argment and cited evidence has been shown to be invalid, we can see you're just throwing more mud against the wall that you're hoping we'll spend time cleaning up.

But that is your well established MO, JayUtah. Hone in on the semantics and get your opponent bogged down in endless wordgames leading nowhere. It is called obstruction. Or worse.

You raised the one detail, now you're quibbling over whether Jay is wrong for pointing out your arguments about the one detail are wrong. You're the one quibbling over the semantics and playing endless wordgames.

Hank

 

[Hans]

That's common among conspiracy theorists and other fringe claimants. It's all part of the experience in this particular arena of debate. I want to include this sort of observation in my book, but I have yet to meet with a psychologist who can guide me through the applicable literature.

Informally, what it looks like is a sort of reverse projection. Conspiracy theorists tend to distrust and dislike authority, and often can cite persuasive reasons for doing so. The outward manifestation of that distrust is conspiracism. But then they think -- not unreasonably -- that any objection to their claims must come from the diametrically opposed motivation: trust and love for authority. That's rarely the case. Skeptics don't oppose conspiracy theories because they love authority and trust the government. They oppose them mostly because they are poorly supported by evidence and poorly reasoned. Whatever the conclusion, skeptics are more enamored with the process of reasoning than by the implications of the conclusions reached. I personally don't care whether Oswald acted alone. I'm more interested in the process by which the competing claims are weighed, and that interest is motivated by fostering a society in which critical thinking is valued. I believe we would all benefit from that.

There's more to the psychology of conspiracism v. skepticism, of course, but the point at hand is that of course skeptics will be wrongly accused of being the friends of the enemy. It's easier to do that than to try to understand one's opponent and see where he's coming from.

This is also true of archaeology CT'ers who complain endlessly that archaeologists and their ilk are 'hidding stuff' but when it is pointed out to them that their only knowledge of the subject they are whining about comes from archaeologists who spent years excavating a site and then put out published accounts. They are still derided them for 'hiding the evidence'.

It's amusing.

 

[HSienzant]

What, do you not grasp that somebody can "hate America" while also being intelligent and knowledgeable?

Straw man. Respond to the points I make, not the ones you want to pretend I made.

Also, the original reference was to General Walker, an actual nazi if just being homicidal towards communists wasn't enough.

Change of subject. JFK wasn't a communist. And Walker wasn't a Nazi. Oswald tried to kill both. The only place their politics intersected were both were in favor of removing Castro from Cuba. And Oswald shot at both. And Oswald was a avowed pro-Castro supporter.

The point you wrote that I took exception to mentioned Walker not at all:

...Screw American capitalism and screw their government for their decadely harassment and murder of poor people for profit.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Research like this is, always was, and always will be a labor of love.

So people shouldn't get paid for their work if they love it?

If I love working in the coal mine, Mr. Peabody's Coal Company shouldn't issue me a paycheck at the end of the week?

Hank

 

[manifesto]

You raised the one little detail initially of the missing bank endorsement stamps. Your cite was to a forum post by a CT named Sandy Larsen, apparently. He's not an expert in money orders, federal law, or anything. That one little detail has been shown to be false.

I did notice your presence in that thread, Hank. Could you cite and link to the post/s were you or anyone else are showing Larsens posted regulations are ”false”.

I have not seen any such ”shown”. On the contrary, you and your fellow LN’s in that thread are just disappering after a couple of efforts to show the ”falseness” of the documents.

You also added for, but cited no evidence for, that all the evidence is similarly flawed. But since your one cited argment and cited evidence has been shown to be invalid, we can see you're just throwing more mud against the wall that you're hoping we'll spend time cleaning up.

Where has it been shown to be invalid? In the Ed.Forum-thread?

Show me.

You raised the one detail, now you're quibbling over whether Jay is wrong for pointing out your arguments about the one detail are wrong. You're the one quibbling over the semantics and playing endless wordgames.

Hank

No. I’m pointing out that JayUtah misread my post and argument, to which he/she now have conceded.

Your are in spite of this insisting on JayUtah being correct in his reading of my post and his/her strawman attack on it?

Wow.

 

[bknight]

Off topic, but what happened this morning?

 

[manifesto]

This is day three of no evidence from manifesto

This post will be reposted each day until the questions are answered to H's satisfaction.

Another lie from Hans, the lying adherent to the lying holy Mighty Church of the Looney Nutters.

I have provided linked citation of a regulatory document showing that bank endorsement stamps had to be present on 1963 PMO’s in order for a mailorder purchase to go through.

No such bank endorsement stamps are present on the alleged Oswald/Hidell PMO = evidence of fabrication by FBI.

I’ll continue with Hank’s little list one issue at a time. No worries, that is the soul reason for me being here.

To tell you the truth.

 

[JayUtah]

So who were these idiots? Why would every single detail be wrong? Is any aspect of the preparation for this 'conspiracy' done right. Did they get every single detail wrong - is that the CT world view on this?

You can always find some way to nit-pick every link a causal chain, especially if you let the process go for 50 years or more. We see this in every conspiracy genre. This is why the concept of parsimony is so important to real-world investigation. Generally in a conspiracy theory, each link of the causal chain supporting the conventional narrative has its own self-contained alternate explanation. It's formulated in a vacuum irrespective of the alternate reasoning promoted for other links. So when you view the whole chain in the context of the aggregated alternative explanations, it looks like a comedy of errors. That, in my opinion, is principally why few if any JFK conspiracy theorists are willing to provide an entire narrative: seen all together, any such narrative composed of piecewise snippets would seem altogether less likely that the lone gunman theory.

Being able to explain the entire causal chain with one hypothesis is the essence of parsimony, even if the explanation is locally problematic for one or two links. This is where I initially mistook Manifesto's argument last night, because it's so very common to hear arguments promoting an anti-parsimonious approach. Perhaps it is better to illustrate with a paragraph from a post I wrote at another forum.

"Thing is, in the real world [all the evidece] do[es] matter. Not everyone you talk to is going to weigh the evidence the same as you. You propose an approach where one piece of evidence arbitrarily decides the whole issue because the set of explanations for that one piece of evidence is so very decisive. But in doing that, you ignore 99 pieces of evidence which -- under the explanation you propose for your bellwether -- have no explanation, or speculative explanations at best. That's not an improvement. Instead of having only one bit of evidence that has a problematic explanation, now you have 99 bits of evidence that have problematic explanations. To people not confined to the one-trick-pony style of thinking you're using here, that's a deal-breaker. If we must resort to speculation to explain things, let's explain the fewest bits of evidence as possible that way."​

That's not the argument Manifesto was making, as I found when reading his post more carefully. But the rebuttal here is illustrative nonetheless, because the piecewise speculation over how every little bit of evidence could have been forged, doctored, coerced, etc. does not add up to a parsimonious whole. It adds up to a fractious, contradictory comedy of errors at the heart of which is a contradiction found in basic form in so many conspiracy genres: the simultaneous omnipotence and error of the alleged perpetrators.

NASA's budget and capability was so huge they could have done anything to create fraudulent Moon landings -- except, you know, actually land on the Moon. The CIA is omnipotent and blessed with unlimited resources, but it can't create a convincing paper trail to frame its patsy. Even worse, while this paper trail convinces the experts, it is somehow obvious as a fraud to amateurs working in their free time without the benefit of years of experience and inside understanding. This is invariably implausible at prima facie.

It's only a matter of time before we get the "whistle-blower" variant -- all the errors in the Warren Commission evidence, dutifully found by these amateurs, were placed there intentionally by CIA operatives uncomfortable with what they were being asked to do, hoping they would be discovered by others sometime hence. Not that anyone here is yet making that argument, but there is a natural progression to these sorts of coverup-based conspiracy theories.