Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge
- Thread starter BStrong
- Start date
- Status
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
One of these things:
read what you post?
did that all by yourself .
Is not like the other
LOL. Do you
read what you post?You
did that all by yourself .Axxman300
Philosopher
You said you went to college. You even sneered at the quality of American education, and yet you don't get the reference?
...okay...
How could the dead president be evidence of the rifle being fired that day, Axxman300? Teleological reasoning as taught dilligently by the Mighty Church. Quran school?The dead President of the United States would be your first clue
But who knows, maybe Oswald was shooting pigeons that morning, and the bullets just orbited the Plaza for a few hours, and tragically hit the President by accident.
The dictabelt are impossible to fake, and why would anyone fake them if possible?
For spite?
It is possible to see if it has NOT been recently fired, yes.There is no way to test a firearm to see when it was fired. Not now with all our technology, and certainly not in 1963. You fail
Very easy with an index finger.
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
That's just it... there is no missing stamp.
The PAY TO THE ORDER OF THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO is sufficient, per the regulations posted here by Manifesto.
Hank
Last edited:
No, I said I went to university. And where did I ”sneered at the quality of American education”?You said you went to college. You even sneered at the quality of American education, and yet you don't get the reference?
...okay...
Edit: And yes, we read Cervantes over here, no worries.
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Is there anything about Oswald assassinating JFK that you
do know? You don't seem knowledgeable enough to discuss it intelligently.bknight
Master Poster
I take it then you've never read Don Quixote?
HSienzant
Philosopher
No, that's not at all what it says. That's a falsehood by you, as it was previously pointed out the language contains clearly delineated exceptions. It's official, you don't know what the word 'or' means.
Like this:
PAY TO THE ORDER OF
THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO
59-91144
KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.
THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO
59-91144
KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.
Like this:
PAY TO THE ORDER OF
THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO
59-91144
KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.
THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO
59-91144
KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.
Last edited:
Like who?
HSienzant
Philosopher
No, another false claim by you. You're simply attempting to shift the burden of proof once more. Your own offered quote has been established to mean that the stamped notation PAYABLE TO THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO is more than acceptable.
You need to show that this somehow doesn't apply to any money orders used by Oswald. Because it sure seems to apply.
Hank
HSienzant
Philosopher
That's not what it says. Ignore the plain language some more. Hey, it's only your credibility at stake. I remind you that YOU posted the very evidence that destroys your claim:
#98 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.
Hank
Last edited:
This is Sandy Larsens respons to this in the Ed.Foum-thread you runned away from with your tail between your legs, Hank.
”David, [DVP]
All PMOs are processed by Federal Reserve Banks, and they require that the "sending bank" endorse the PMO over to them. In our case the sending bank was the First National Bank of Chicago and the Federal Reserve Bank was the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. So there should be a stamp that reads
Pay to the order of Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
The stamp should also include the date and the ABA number of the sending bank, First National Bank of Chicago. This one stamped on both sides of the PMO.
As an alternative to this endorsement,
Pay to the order of Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
this can be stamped:
Pay to the order of Any Bank, Banker, or Trust Company
Jason is wrong in saying that the endorser is supposed to replace the words "Any Bank" to a specific bank name. The whole point of this type of endorsement is to allow more than one particular bank to be the recipient. I gave Jason this example document showing that type of endorsement, but he apparently ignored it.
Those stamps are missing from the rifle PMO. Here is the document that states this federal regulation. And following is a quote from the regulation showing how the endorsement is to be made... which is what I described above.”
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/t...k-endorsements/?do=findComment&comment=376052
All PMOs are processed by Federal Reserve Banks, and they require that the "sending bank" endorse the PMO over to them. In our case the sending bank was the First National Bank of Chicago and the Federal Reserve Bank was the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. So there should be a stamp that reads
Pay to the order of Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
The stamp should also include the date and the ABA number of the sending bank, First National Bank of Chicago. This one stamped on both sides of the PMO.
As an alternative to this endorsement,
Pay to the order of Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
this can be stamped:
Pay to the order of Any Bank, Banker, or Trust Company
Jason is wrong in saying that the endorser is supposed to replace the words "Any Bank" to a specific bank name. The whole point of this type of endorsement is to allow more than one particular bank to be the recipient. I gave Jason this example document showing that type of endorsement, but he apparently ignored it.
Those stamps are missing from the rifle PMO. Here is the document that states this federal regulation. And following is a quote from the regulation showing how the endorsement is to be made... which is what I described above.”
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/t...k-endorsements/?do=findComment&comment=376052
Endorsements
13. All cash items [including PMOs] 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 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. 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.
13. All cash items [including PMOs] 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 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. 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.
Since I know that you were active in the Ed.Forum thread, this can’t be news to you, Hank. Problem is, neither you, DVP, Jason or anyone else has provided counter evidence to this.
Have you found some? Show me.
Last edited:
I have answered a lot of questions. You are eager students.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Baloney.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Nobody cares what his response is. He's not a qualified expert on the point under discussion.
Your own source admits that Pay to the order of Any Bank, Banker, or Trust Company is acceptable. The money order is stamped:
PAY TO THE ORDER OF
THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO
59-91144
KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.
THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO
59-91144
KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.
Any claims that "Any" in the regulations must use that word is beyond belief, but that is apparently what your CT source is insisting on. The specific name of the specific bank is stamped on the money order because that's the specific bank the money order was deposited to. There are no quotes around "Pay to the order of Any Bank, Banker, or Trust Company" in the regulation, which is what they would have used if they meant to specific that specific language must be used. They even specify that language isn't required, contrary to what your fellow CT insists on (see below).
Oswald's money order has the language necessary on the back of the money order:
http://harveyandlee.net/Money Order.jpg
In short, both you and Sandy are ignoring the clear language of the regulation, pretending it means something it doesn't and insisting the language in the regulation must be used. It says it doesn't. Here's the language again that YOU Provided:
13. All cash items [including PMOs] 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
Quoting a fellow CT and his interpretation of the regulation (which is what you're doing) isn't acceptable here. He's not an expert on federal payments or federal law. Why should we accept his interpretation as the correct one, when the language is clear any similar endorsement is acceptable?
Hank
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You haven't answered any of mine, and I when I ask you whether you're going to, you tell me it's none of my business. So no, you don't get to crow. Not only are you delinquent, you're smug about it.
What a load of horse manure.
Wrong. Larsen writes:
”Jason is wrong in saying that the endorser is supposed to replace the words "Any Bank" to a specific bank name. The whole point of this type of endorsement is to allow more than one particular bank to be the recipient. I gave Jason this example document showing that type of endorsement, but he apparently ignored it.”
[the example document] https://www.hsbc.com.tw/1/PA_ES_Content_Mgmt/content/taiwan_51/common/pdf/draft.pdf
[the example document] https://www.hsbc.com.tw/1/PA_ES_Content_Mgmt/content/taiwan_51/common/pdf/draft.pdf
Again, Larsen:
”All PMOs are processed by Federal Reserve Banks, and they require that the "sending bank" endorse the PMO over to them. In our case the sending bank was the First National Bank of Chicago and the Federal Reserve Bank was the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. So there should be a stamp that reads
Pay to the order of Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
The stamp should also include the date and the ABA number of the sending bank, First National Bank of Chicago. This one stamped on both sides of the PMO.”
What is it that you do not get?Pay to the order of Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
The stamp should also include the date and the ABA number of the sending bank, First National Bank of Chicago. This one stamped on both sides of the PMO.”
- Status