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

[HSienzant]

Lol. How do you know it was fired that day, Hank? 22 nov 1963.

Asked and answered. six pieces of ballistic evidence establish it was fired at the JFK limo during the assassination attempt.

The ”ballistic items”? Without a chain of custody or with clearly fabricated chains of custody?

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

If you found a suspect murder weapon an hour after the murder, wouldn’t you have been curious to see if it had NOT been fired an hour ago? Just a little bit?

I sure would. A whole lot. Again, what's the name of the test I would use to establish when it was fired? Can you cite for it?

Does your finger have markings along the side that, depending on how recently it was fired, glow bright red or something? Is this a scientific test recommended in criminology textbooks? It's called the "Stick your Finger in the Barrel test"?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I have answered a lot of questions.

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

Hank

 

[manifesto]

Like who?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12319306&postcount=4962

 

[manifesto]

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

Hank

Are you are claiming that I have NOT answered a lot of questions, Hank?

Your little ”list” is getting more and more inflated, methinks.

 

[manifesto]

Asked and answered. six pieces of ballistic evidence establish it was fired at the JFK limo during the assassination attempt.

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

I sure would. A whole lot. Again, what's the name of the test I would use to establish when it was fired? Can you cite for it?

Does your finger have markings along the side that, depending on how recently it was fired, glow bright red or something? Is this a scientific test recommended in criminology textbooks? It's called the "Stick your Finger in the Barrel test"?

Hank

Don’t be silly, Hank. It is just common sense. If the rifle is clean and not fired since cleaned, there wouldn’t be any soot on the finger.

That is why our sergeant checked our weapons after we cleaned them, with his finger in the pipe and chamber.

You are disputing this? Hank?

 

[JayUtah]

Are you are claiming that I have NOT answered a lot of questions, Hank?

You've admitted you haven't answered any of mine. And you've all but admitted you have no intention to in any determinable time. Methinks your protests along these lines are defeated by your own admissions.

 

[manifesto]

What a load of horse manure.

Are you disputing this?

Really?

 

[HSienzant]

Larsen writes

You're quoting a fellow CT's interpretation, with no standing as an expert. Nobody gives a hump about this fellow and what he thinks.

Again, Larsen:

Again, quoting his interpretation is meaningless. Nobody cares. He's not an expert on these matters. He's just a CT trying to find a reason to exclude the money order, and his desperation shows -- as does yours by citing him.

What is it that you do not get?

Why you think claims made by CTs (including yourself) are somehow not questionable under any circumstances.

The example you cited looks like one of those checks I get from my credit card company where I can write a check to myself and cash it at my bank. Since the credit card company doesn't know which bank I'll be going to (or which bank my neighbor down the block will be going to when he gets his cash advance checks) they use the language 'any bank'

But the regulations don't specify that language is necessary. They even allow for other language -- like when you know what bank you'll be cashing the money order at, as Klein's did. Then they have a stamp prepared with the acceptable language and use it on all checks and money orders.

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

Don’t be silly, Hank. It is just common sense.

But it's not expected procedure for law enforcement, as far as you have been able to establish.

If the rifle is clean and not fired since cleaned, there wouldn’t be any soot on the the finger.

That's a true statement. That doesn't make it relevant to a criminal investigation. Your argument is that the investigating officer failed to do something he was expected to do, therefore the investigation is suspect. You haven't established that he was expected to do it.

That is why our sergeant checked our weapons after we cleaned them, with his finger in the pipe and chamber.

That's a military inspection. That isn't the same thing as law enforcement investigative procedure.

You are disputing this?

I'm not disputing your sergeant did it. I'm disputing that what your sergeant did has anything to do with how crimes are investigated that involve firearms.

 

[manifesto]

You've admitted you haven't answered any of mine.

Have I? Where?

And you've all but admitted you have no intention to in any determinable time. Methinks your protests along these lines are defeated by your own admissions.

As long as you and your brothers and sisters in Faith are bombarding me with a barrage of crap I have to defend myself. Stop doing that and your time in waiting will be much shorter.

Give it a try.

 

[HSienzant]

Don’t be silly, Hank. It is just common sense.

So criminologists the world over are not as smart as you? Is that what you're suggesting? That they are overlooking an easy test to determine if a weapon was fired in the recent past? I suggest you write some of them and let them know of your discovery and let us know what they think of it. Seriously, get back to us when they tell you. You owe it to all those innocent people wrongly convicted you were whining about in the past.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Are you are claiming that I have NOT answered a lot of questions, Hank?

Your little ”list” is getting more and more inflated, methinks.

Name one on the list you've established with evidence and citations to the evidence. You can't because you haven't.

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

Have I? Where?

I pointed out that you haven't answered any of my questions. You told me you would in due time, and that when was none of my business.

As long as you and your brothers and sisters in Faith are bombarding me with a barrage of crap I have to defend myself. Stop doing that and your time in waiting will be much shorter.

Give it a try.

No. As long as you have time to write a stream of insults like the above, I think you have time to answer my questions. Stop trying to blame everyone else for your failures and do what you keep saying you will do.

 

[bknight]

Have I? Where?

As long as you and your brothers and sisters in Faith are bombarding me with a barrage of crap I have to defend myself. Stop doing that and your time in waiting will be much shorter.

Give it a try.

All we're asking is for you to post evidence in any of the statements you've made. In addition I would ask you to refrain from making any more until you start answering some of them

 

[smartcooky]

Wrong. Larsen writes:

Aside from the fact that Larsen is dead wrong, he has no standing to tell us what HIS interpretations of Federal regulations are. He's just a CT loony whose unqualified opinions carry zero weight here.

Again, Larsen:

Again, Larsen has no standing to tell us what HIS interpretations of Federal regulations are. His opinions carry zero weight here.

1. The regulations say "should"... "should" does not equal "must"

2. The endorsement can be to any bank, well, THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO is any bank.

What is it that you do not get?

Right back at ya!

 

[smartcooky]

As long as you and your brothers and sisters in Faith are bombarding me with a barrage of crap I have to defend myself. Stop doing that and your time in waiting will be much shorter.

Well, there is a way you can stop this happening

1. Stop posting new bare assertions and unevidenced claims.

2. Start answering questions and posting evidence instead of avoiding, evading, delaying, obfuscating and eluding questions. If you spent less time insulting people and posting ad-hominems, and then running away like a coward, you'd have the backlog cleared up quickly, because you claim you already have all the evidence.

Give it a try.

Please do.

 

[manifesto]

Aside from the fact that Larsen is dead wrong, he has no standing to tell us what HIS interpretations of Federal regulations are. He's just a CT loony whose unqualified opinions carry zero weight here.

I’m not citing Larsen because he is an ”expert” in anything, and he doesn’t claim to be an expert in anything. He is citing federal regulations and other documents in support of his claims.

It is these documents that are the evidence.

Again, Larsen has no standing to tell us what HIS interpretations of Federal regulations are. His opinions carry zero weight here.

1. The regulations say "should"... "should" does not equal "must"

2. The endorsement can be to any bank, well, THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO is any bank.



Right back at ya!

Again, he doesn’t interpret any documents, he is citing them. Have you looked at this document?

What does it say on the left side?

https://www.hsbc.com.tw/1/PA_ES_Content_Mgmt/content/taiwan_51/common/pdf/draft.pdf

 

[smartcooky]

I’m not citing Larsen because he is an ”expert” in anything, and he doesn’t claim to be an expert in anything. He is citing federal regulations and other documents in support of his claims.

It is these documents that are the evidence.



Again, he doesn’t interpret any documents, he is citing them. Have you looked at this document?

What does it say on the left side?

https://www.hsbc.com.tw/1/PA_ES_Content_Mgmt/content/taiwan_51/common/pdf/draft.pdf

What does the wording on a 2018 bank draft from Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation have to so with a 1963 money order from the US Postal Service?

Yo are getting desperate now

 

[HSienzant]

I’m not citing Larsen because he is an ”expert” in anything, and he doesn’t claim to be an expert in anything.

You're citing his interpretations -- which are meaningless because as you admit, he's not an expert in this. He's a standard-grade CT, with standard-grade CT logic: "Anything pointing to Oswald is automatically wrong, we just have to find the reason to exclude it!"

He is citing federal regulations and other documents in support of his claims.

And it's been established his interpretations are wrong. The regulations say the exact opposite of what he's claiming.

It is these documents that are the evidence.

And they establish Oswald's money order is perfectly legitimate, and have the required stamp

PAYABLE TO THE ORDER OF
THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO​

Again, he doesn’t interpret any documents, he is citing them. Have you looked at this document?

Of course he's interpreting them, otherwise you wouldn't have cited his post in defense of your argument. You had previously cited the language of the regulation that establishes beyond any doubt what's required. And the language of the regulations makes clear the specific language Larsen and you are insisting is required, is *NOT* required.

What does it say on the left side?
https://www.hsbc.com.tw/1/PA_ES_Content_Mgmt/content/taiwan_51/common/pdf/draft.pdf

Asked and answered already here:

The example you cited looks like one of those checks I get from my credit card company where I can write a check to myself and cash it at my bank. Since the credit card company doesn't know which bank I'll be going to (or which bank my neighbor down the block will be going to when he gets his cash advance checks) they use the language 'any bank'

But the regulations don't specify that language is necessary. They even allow for other language -- like when you know what bank you'll be cashing the money order at, as Klein's did. Then they have a stamp prepared with the acceptable language and use it on all checks and money orders.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

Don’t be silly, Hank. It is just common sense. If the rifle is clean and not fired since cleaned, there wouldn’t be any soot on the finger.

That is why our sergeant checked our weapons after we cleaned them, with his finger in the pipe and chamber.

You are disputing this? Hank?

Was your sergeant also a detective? Was he solving a crime?

No, he was just making sure your rifle was clean before putting it away in the arms room.

Please give us the name and phone number of your sergeant so we may call him to ask if he was the one man on earth who could tell when a weapon had been fired so that we may document of process, and get him the Nobel Prize.