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

[RoboTimbo]

Cite ONE thing I have made up

manifesto , MicahJava has added a few more. You better get busy!

I edited the comment to explain these problems a billionth time once more. Your welcome for the free education.

You argue that an entry wound in the parietal bone survive intact after removing the shattered skull bone fragments and some additional sawing. Some brain removal procedures can indeed happen where the occipital bone remains intact and careful maneuvering of the brain can allow it to be fit through the front. But in those cases, not only is a lot of frontal bone separated, but enough of the left side of the skull to fit your fingers under both temporal lobes of the brain. We know from the best and earliest evidence that the autopsy pathologists officially concluded that the single head trajectory was anatomically upwards. Which means that if you believe the entry wound in the autopsy report was actually 4-5 inches above the EOP, then you must also believe that not a lot of frontal bone was removed, otherwise you'd have to explain the beveled exit notch on the open-cranium photographs. And also the open-cranium photographs shows a lot of the left side of the skull intact.

Which of you can run away the fastest?

 

[carlitos]

Also, what about books that do not exist in ebook format officially for sale? Can we pirate OCR'd scanned copies of those books or do we have to swallow in our filth for a thousand years with physical copies bought at fluctuating prices that must be ordered through the mail when you just need a single obscure reference?

We don't have to swallow in our filth for a thousand years. Only decadely.

 

[HSienzant]

Your knowledge of the case is so outdated, you are probably the real one using 33-year-old memory

Sorry, you need to detail what's wrong with the original testimony and evidence. Quoting the expert who examined the ballistic evidence and citing his conclusions by going to the actual source and copying the pertinent portion of his testimony isn't relying on 33-year-old memory. It's relying on finding the actual evidence right now and shoving it in Manifesto's face to correct his egregious errors of fact.

But when you go to the published testimony of the ARRB and cite something Humes or someone else recalled in 1996 about the autopsy in 1963, you're the one using 33-year-old memories to buttress your arguments. And 33-year-old memories aren't reliable. I've told you that. Even the ARRB told you that:

https://fas.org/sgp/advisory/arrb98/part09.htm

"The deposition transcripts and other medical evidence that were released by the Review Board should be evaluated cautiously by the public. Often the witnesses contradict not only each other, but sometimes themselves. For events that transpired almost 35 years ago, all persons are likely to have failures of memory. It would be more prudent to weigh all of the evidence, with due concern for human error, rather than take single statements as "proof" for one theory or another."
​

What they cautioned against is exactly what you've been doing.

You argue that an entry wound in the parietal bone survive intact after removing the shattered skull bone fragments and some additional sawing.

I never argued that. If you disagree, provide a link.

Some brain removal procedures can indeed happen where the occipital bone remains intact and careful maneuvering of the brain can allow it to be fit through the front.

Except that's not the case here. It was severely fractured. Did you look up "comminuted" yet?

But in those cases, not only is a lot of frontal bone separated, but enough of the left side of the skull to fit your fingers under both temporal lobes of the brain.

Your imaginary scenario is imaginary.

We know from the best and earliest evidence that the autopsy pathologists officially concluded that the single head trajectory was anatomically upwards.

Did they expressly state that in the autopsy report?

Which means that if you believe the entry wound in the autopsy report was actually 4-5 inches above the EOP, then you must also believe that not a lot of frontal bone was removed,

Who said it was? Besides you I mean?

otherwise you'd have to explain the beveled exit notch on the open-cranium photographs. And also the open-cranium photographs shows a lot of the left side of the skull intact.

Can you explain that to Manifesto? He appears to think there was a shot from the right front of the limo.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

We don't have to swallow in our filth for a thousand years. Only decadely.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Great answer Hank... JAQing off?????????

Edited by zooterkin: 

<snip>
Edited for civility.

You're welcome. I think.

So if you have no other issues, I guess we're done here, No Other.

You never did respond to my points and answer the questions I raised, however.

Do you intend to do so? Or is this going to continue to be a one-way street, with you asking a bunch of CT - based questions, and me supplying all the actual evidence?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I find no argument with your wording. I do want to highlight that it is quite possible to determine if it was NOT fired within a couple of hours. Knowing if that rifle was NOT fired was equally, if not more important, than finding if the rifle WAS recently fired. Since we both agree that it is next to impossible if not impossible to determine when it was fired... then finding out if it was not fired is a route to go. We all know that this was not conducted.

Except it was fired, and we can establish exactly when it was fired - to the minute - in the case of this shooting and this rifle.

It was fired at 12:30 PM Dallas time on 11/22/63.

We know that because of the six pieces of ballistic evidence that were determined to have been fired from that rifle and because of where those six pieces were found.

Easy-peasy. As easy as 3-2-1 in fact..

Three shell discovered shortly after the assassination at the sniper's nest window were ballistically traceable to Oswald's rifle to the EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER WEAPONS IN THE WORLD.

Two large fragments discovered the night of the assassination in the Presidential limousine were ballistically traceable to Oswald's rifle to the EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER WEAPONS IN THE WORLD.

One nearly whole bullet discovered in the hospital near Connally's stretcher on the afternoon of the assassination was ballistically traceable to Oswald's rifle to the EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER WEAPONS IN THE WORLD.

Now you'll quibble over the claims and pretend the evidence isn't admissible because [whatever you can think of the moment] but all that evidence is admissible and all of it establishes Oswald's rifle was fired not only on the day of the assassination, but at the time of the assassination and at the Presidential limousine. To the EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER PLACES AND TIMES.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Which of you can run away the fastest?

Probably should add 'No Other' to that list.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

Twice while he was in DPD custody he said:

"I guess everyone will know my name now."

All you need to know.

He said it with a frustrated sigh, not as you are trying to imply, triumphantly. Oswald was an undercover agent, probably working for the CIA.

After leaving TSBD he went to the Texas Theater to a rendezvous with a cut out for his handler, for information/instructions on how to act following the assassination of JFK.

Movie theathers was/is classic anonymous meetingplaces for spooks, and Oswald was seen sitting down next to multiple single patrons, rise and sit down next to another one, and so on, as if looking for someone he did not know or recognized = cut out. He also had a couple of very odd items on him (do not remember exactly what at the moment), also a classic way to identify one another.

The list of the ca 20 patrons/witnesses present at the theather was conveniently ”lost” by the DPD shortly after the arrest, never to be seen again. The few testimonies on record slipped through in spite of this.

You need to shape up, Axxman. Disingenious, yes. Pirhana, lol.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Cite ONE thing I have made up

Here's a bunch:

He said it with a frustrated sigh, not as you are trying to imply, triumphantly. Oswald was an undercover agent, probably working for the CIA.

After leaving TSBD he went to the Texas Theater to a rendezvous with a cut out for his handler, for information/instructions on how to act following the assassination of JFK.

Movie theathers was/is classic anonymous meetingplaces for spooks, and Oswald was seen sitting down next to multiple single patrons, rise and sit down next to another one, and so on, as if looking for someone he did not know or recognized = cut out. He also had a couple of very odd items on him (do not remember exactly what at the moment), also a classic way to identify one another.

So why did he try to murder more officers there after murdering Officer Tippit with the same gun?

 

[CORed]

Okay, I think so far in this thread I have proven beyond all doubt that the open-cranium photographs could not show a beveled entry hole 4-5 inches above the EOP without the back of the skull being repaired or placed back. It is impossible to fit a brain through a 5-inch skull cavity, and remember the skull photographs show a lot of the left side of the skull INTACT.

Too bad you are the only person (with the possible exception of manifesto) in this thread who thinks you have done anything remotely resembling that.

 

[manifesto]

Probably should add 'No Other' to that list.

Hank

No, it is only people like you who runs away when/if losing a debate, Hank. Like in the Ed.Forum thread on the Hidell PMO.

If you knew that you had evidence countering Larsens cited regulations, you would have presented it, triumphantly sadistically.

Instead, you became silent and disapeared like a puff of bad air, never to be seen again.

Back to the bosom of the Mighty Church.

 

[JayUtah]

No, it is only people like you who runs away when/if losing a debate...

Want me to post a list of my questions you've largely ignored? Pot, meet kettle.

 

[MicahJava]

Daily reminder that Kennedy's autopsy pathologists concluded the beveled exit on the skull bone was situated anatomically higher than the beveled entry on the skull, next to the EOP.

See the arrow pointing up here on the face sheet diagram which is stained in the President's blood:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/tUPeu8F.jpg[/qimg]

And a summarized autopsy "conclusion" by Sibert and O'Neill in a 2 AM 11/23/1963 teletype, freshly written after departing the autopsy around 11:00 - 1:00 AM and driving to the FBI lab from Bethesda Naval Hospital, reads "TOTAL BODY XRAY AND AUTOPSY REVEALED ONE BULLET ENTERED BACK OF HEAD AND THEREAFTER EMERGED THROUGH TOP OF SKULL. PIECE OF SKULL MEASURING TEN BY SIX POINT FIVE CENTIMETERS LATER FLOWN IN FROM DALLAS HOSPITAL AND XRAYS BETHESDA DISCLOSED MINUTE METAL FRAGMENTS IN THIS PIECE WHERE BULLET EMERGED FROM SKULL.": https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md149.pdf

For anybody who wants to think the autopsy pathologists decided to lie about their recollections about the EOP wound to the Warren Commission to cover up their personal embarrassment for describing the small head wound as an approximation too anatomically low, this is a reminder that we have information from the NIGHT of the autopsy showing that the location of this beveled exit on the skull bone was anatomically higher. No room to explain these issues by saying there was an exit lower near the forehead unless you want to say that's a totally separate lie from the pathologists.

 

[traxy]

Hey Manifesto, remember when you asked for examples of you making stuff up without evidence?

He said it with a frustrated sigh, not as you are trying to imply, triumphantly. Oswald was an undercover agent, probably working for the CIA.

After leaving TSBD he went to the Texas Theater to a rendezvous with a cut out for his handler, for information/instructions on how to act following the assassination of JFK.

Movie theathers was/is classic anonymous meetingplaces for spooks, and Oswald was seen sitting down next to multiple single patrons, rise and sit down next to another one, and so on, as if looking for someone he did not know or recognized = cut out. He also had a couple of very odd items on him (do not remember exactly what at the moment), also a classic way to identify one another.

The list of the ca 20 patrons/witnesses present at the theather was conveniently ”lost” by the DPD shortly after the arrest, never to be seen again. The few testimonies on record slipped through in spite of this.

You need to shape up, Axxman. Disingenious, yes. Pirhana, lol.

 

[manifesto]

I have no opinion because I haven't actually sighted a copy of the 1963 regulation

Here is the regulations 1911 - 1969 (Sandy Larsen on Ed.Forum)

”Bank stamps were always required on Postal Money Orders during the 20th Century.”

United States Official Postal Guide, 1911

Page 22:

8. Payments to Banks - When an [money] order purporting to have been receipted by the payee, or the first endorsee, is deposited in a bank for collection, the postmaster at the office drawn upon may effect payment to the bank, provided there be a guarantee on the part of the bank that the latter will refund the amount if it afterward appear that the depositor was not the owner of the order. An order thus paid should bear upon its back the impression of the stamp of the bank. The person receiving payment in the bank's behalf on an order thus receipted, the signature of the payee or endorsee being left undisturbed, may be required to write his name upon the back of the order.



United States Official Postal Guide, 1925

Page 95:

27. Payments to Banks - When an [money] order purporting to have been properly receipted by the payee, or indorsee, is deposited in a bank for collection, the postmaster at the office drawn upon may effect payment to the bank, provided there be a guarantee on the part of the bank that the latter will refund the amount if it afterwards appear that the depositor was not the owner of the order. An order thus paid should bear upon its back the impression of the stamp of the bank.



FRB Circular 4928, August 18, 1960

All cash items [including Postal Money Orders] 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.


FRB Circular 6370, July 18, 1969

All cash items [including Postal Money Oders] sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to, or to the order of, the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to, or to the order of, any bank, banker, or trust company, or en*dorsed with equivalent words or abbreviations thereof. The endorse*ment of the sender should be dated and should show the A.B.A. transit number of the sender, if any, in prominent type on both sides of the endorsement.​

”Others

I recall that I found the same requirement for bank stamps on PMOs in a late 1980s document and a late 1990s document. I didn't save that information, I imagine because it was irrelevant to the 1963 assassination.

But the point is that bank stamps were always required on PMOs, and there was never any deviation from that practice.”​

Questions?

(if in fact, regulations dated as such even exist)

What?

However, I am well versed in the English language, so I do know with absolute certainty that "SHOULD" does not mean "MUST".

Miriam Webster:

Definition of - should

past tense of shall

1 —used in auxiliary function to express condition
if he should leave his father, his father would die —Genesis 44:22 (Revised Standard Version)

2 —used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency​

Questions?

From my own experience in business, I have seen numerous examples of financial instruments such as cheques, money orders, traveller's cheques and bank transfers that have NOT been endorsed or stamped by a bank despite the fact that they have been banked and the funds have been deposited into my account.

In fact, it you think about it (and idiots like Sandy Larsen obviously have not) is easy to understand why that might be. Why are money orders endorsed with a bank stamp in the first place? The answer is, that it is a confirmation that the person who is presenting the money order, is the person to whom the money order is addressed, i.e. the payee. When a person presents a money order for cashing (at a bank or a post office) or for banking into their own bank account (at a bank), they present the money order to a teller. The teller will ask the person for some form of identification (driver's licence, ID card) to show that they are the payee. When the teller is satisfied with their identification, they will stamp the money order, and that acts as an endorsement.

However, when a company or business is presenting the money order, it is likely to be just one among many being banked at the same time. Klein's Sporting Goods was a very big company that had been around since before WWII, and they didn't just sell guns. they dealt in sports equipment across the whole range of sports, leisure and pastimes; racquet & bat sports, ball sports, golfing equipment, fishing tackle, sports and hunting apparel, even musical instruments! They were a business that advertised in dozens of magazines and newspapers across the whole of the USA. A business that large is going to be banking hundreds of cheques, money orders, and charge card slips (as well as a large amount of cash) every day. They would have used a courier, or an armoured car service (or perhaps an employee) to deliver their cash and document bags to the bank for banking. Did the courier driver or the driver of the armoured car or his shotgun, have to wait while the teller individually hand-stamped hundreds of money orders and cheques? Of course not, and why? Because these financial instruments were already endorsed by the payee, and this was indicated by their stamp on the back of the instrument, in this case....

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

... was all the endorsement that the bank (and ultimately, the Fed) needed to verify the identity of the payee. The reference number will be either an authorisation number for Klein's, or the last seven digits of their bank account number at that bank (my endorsement stamp had the last seven digits of my account number at the branch where I bank (plus a two-digit suffix to indicate which sub-account it is to be banked into)

I can therefore reasonably conclude that the Klien's endorsement stamp is sufficient proof that the money order was indeed processed.

This is Larsens answer to this as put forward by a ”banker” on Ed.Forum:

”Jason,

First, that is not a bank endorsement. A bank endorsement is one stamped by a bank, not an account holder.

Second, the applicable federal regulation required that the endorsement be made to a Federal Reserve Bank, not to the receiving bank (which is what the First National Bank of Chicago was.)”


http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/t...rsements/?page=33&tab=comments#comment-376046
​

Questions?

Now, I don't expect an unreasonable CT such as you accept any of this. As is usual for your type, I expect you will merely handwave this all away. My sole purpose posting this in such detail is to inform the lurkers, and/or those who might be sitting on the fence, and/or those with an ounce of commonsense and who, unlike you, are capable of thinking and reasoning for themselves, and not be told how to think by the JFK-CT loony echo chambers people like you inhabit.

See above.

 

[manifesto]

Want me to post a list of my questions you've largely ignored? Pot, meet kettle.

I’m still here, JayUtah. In due course.

 

[manifesto]

Too bad you are the only person (with the possible exception of manifesto) in this thread who thinks you have done anything remotely resembling that.

Quantity should not be conflated with quality, CORed. Billions of flies eat ****.

 

[MicahJava]

Hey Manifesto, remember when you asked for examples of you making stuff up without evidence?

Oswald's rendezvous at the theater (whether or not he was hiding from the Police or if he had a handgun) is evidenced not only by the witness statements about Oswald traveling between the theater seats next to people as if looking for a signal from some expected contact, but by the "half/torn dollar bill" evidence.

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/22/2288-001.gif

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pages/WH_Vol22_0105a.jpg

 

[JayUtah]

I’m still here, JayUtah. In due course.

My very first question to you has gone unanswered, and you've responded several other people's more recent posts in the interim. In a few cases you asked me for specifics, which were promptly provided only to be met with ongoing silence from you.

I choose to interpret your delay in responding to my questions as your running away from the debate, as that seems to be the explanation most consistent with your manifested behavior. If you think you can prove that indefinite delay doesn't constitute running away, please be my guest.

 

[manifesto]

ITYM:

"Ah, I found a rifle here. We're investigating a shooting so this rifle could well be a significant piece of evidence. I think I'll just make sure that I contaminate it by sticking my finger in the barrel, so that if there's any significant residues there I can wipe them off and replace them with some extraneous evidence of my own. I'm sure if I'd been listening in basic training I'd have heard them tell me to do that."

Dave

Lt. Day from DPD’s crime lab examined the rifle for fingerprints etc, on the scene at the TSBD 6th floor.

He did not check it to see if it had NOT been fired that day. An index finger to the pipe and chamber was too sophisticated to perform?

Wow.