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

[HSienzant]

You appear to have a poor grasp of the JFK fabricated evidence subject....

You appear to think that because some CT once uttered some questionable claims about something or other concerning the JFK assassination, anyone who doesn't know about said questionable claim somehow has a poor grasp on the subject. I'd suggest the only ones here who have a poor grasp on the evidence are the three CTs who have posted of late, MicahJava, Manifesto, and no other than No Other.

Hank

 

[OKBob]

It seems to me even IF all of the regulations were not strictly adhered to and I'm not suggesting they were/n't, the money order was paid, therefore this is a fool's errand.

Bingo! Hence the advisory nature of "should." Meaning, "We'll pay the postal order upon demand even if it does not carry all the desired stamps."

 

[OKBob]

Exactly. What CTers need to prove this point is to randomly sample a thousand Kleins money orders from 1963 and check for the stamps they claim are missing.

Yes. I suspect no such thorough empirical investigation will occur. What am I bet that CTs would rather maintain it as a rhetorical ploy?

 

[OKBob]

Luckily we have the FEDERAL REGULATIONS stating that bank endorsment stamps had to be present on both sides, without exception.

No. You have not yet addressed the arguments about "should" and "shall" and the other arguments against your position. Dream on, but you don't know what you're talking about. As I've said before, you're on the wrong discussion list. People know things here--a lot more than you seem to think or respect. You'll be caught out every time, as you have been with this "regulations" thing. Drop it.

 

[OKBob]

Without a chain of custody or with clearly fabricated chains of custody?

What part of your phony "chain of custody" nonsense do you think I haven't disproved? Let me spell it out: The testimony of law enforcement would have filled in any gaps in court. Shall I repeat that?

 

[OKBob]

What is it that you do not get?

What Hank gets, and has demonstrated, is that Larsen--and you--is citing legal language selectively. That's the coward's or the nut's way out. But it doesn't work with people who know something about the law and/or read carefully.

 

[OKBob]

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 with the endless self-pity. You came to this list.

 

[OKBob]

It is these documents that are the evidence.

But legal documents prove nothing by themselves. You and Larsen are misinterpreting them, as shown. You, who claim to be a seeker of truth, do you even care that you are distorting the legal truth? Or is all your thinking instrumentalist?

 

[Axxman300]

You appear to have a poor grasp of the JFK fabricated evidence subject, because you should know that even if the money order were real, the evidence indicates not only that it was purchased while Oswald was signed in at his job, but that it was purchased at a Post Office miles away from the TSBD.

He didn't work at the TSBD when he bought the guns, he worked at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, 525 Browder, in Dallas at the time. Closest post office is .7 miles away.

Fail.

 

[manifesto]

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

It shows the customary use of:

Pay to the order of Any Bank, Banker, or Trust Company​

That is, the regulation doesn’t say that you can replace (incert) the wording ”Any Bank, Banker, or Trust Company”, with the name of any bank of your chosing. It says that either you stamp:

”Pay to the order of Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (in this case)”​

or you stamp:

”Pay to the order of Any Bank, Banker, or Trust Company”​

That is, litterally. Like here:

And here is another part of the regulation:

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.​

Nowhere to be found on the Hidell PMO. Why?

 

[manifesto]

Stop with the endless self-pity. You came to this list.

No self-pity, just courtesy. I’m truly enjoying myself.

 

[HSienzant]

It shows the customary use of:

Pay to the order of Any Bank, Banker, or Trust Company​

That is, the regulation doesn’t say that you can replace (incert) the wording ”Any Bank, Banker, or Trust Company”, with the name of any bank of your chosing. It says that either you stamp:

”Pay to the order of Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (in this case)”​

or you stamp:

”Pay to the order of Any Bank, Banker, or Trust Company”​

You didn't click on the Homer Simpson link, did you? Or if you did, you didn't get the joke.

MicahJava appears to be ready to throw in the towel on this silly argument by you and Sandy Larsen.

You already showed that was wrong in your initial post when you posted the postal regulations.

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.

It doesn't mandate the language you claim, because it's not in quotes. And they specify similar language would do. Hopefully you're not claiming that a stamp with "Payable With Some Similar Endorsement" would suffice. And if that isn't sufficient, then it's clear the language isn't claiming "endorsed to the order of any bank, banker or trust company" is precisely what's required either. So having a stamp prepared with the acceptable specifics is good enough, and that's exactly what the final 'or' clause says.

Did you figure out how Oswald's handwriting got on the money order you claim is fraudulent?

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

No self-pity, just courtesy. I’m truly enjoying myself.

Which part are you enjoying? The debate? Or the part where you insult people who challenge you? I'm truly curious, because you certainly spend much more energy on one of those pursuits than on the other.

 

[manifesto]

Was it fired an hour ago, a day ago, a week ago, a month ago, a year ago, a decade ago?

The weapon had been fired. We know because of the dead body. We know because they found three shell casings that had been fired from that rifle. We know because the bullets recovered matched the rifle found. We know that Oswald fired the weapon because only his prints were on the weapon. We know the weapon was his.

This is just another one of your sponge tests where you make a stupid claim and then refuse to admit you don't know what you're talking about.

Nobody is talking about if the weapon has been fired or how long ago it has been fired. I’m saying it is very easy to decide if the weapon have NOT been fired.

- No soot? Not fired.

- Soot? Could have been fired an hour before the finding.

Do you think you can wrap your head around that?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I’m truly enjoying myself.

I cannot use my right hand right now

Seems to be a theme with CTs .

Maybe you could spend some time answering questions with your other hand.

 

[smartcooky]

[IMGw=300]https://i.imgur.com/cok99bc.png[/IMGw]

Your self portrait is not a substitute for evidence, and although it does do you justice, you forgot to include the tin foil hat.

However, lets address your issue..

"the evidence indicates not only that it was purchased while Oswald was signed in at his job"

Here is a copy of the money order

1. Please show me where the time stamp is. It shows a date stamp, but no time stamp, so it could have been bought any time the Dallas GPO was open on that day (Tuesday, March 12, 1963) which would usually be 9am to 4pm.

2. Even if there was a time stamp, do you know when Oswald took his lunch break? If so, provide evidence of when his lunch break was.

3. Even if there was a time stamp, and even if he didn't have a lunch break at that time, what is to stop him sneaking out to buy it. Show me physical evidence that he was actually IN the TSBD at the exact time he was buying the PMO, or that he could not have made it from he TSBD to the Dallas GPO and back before being missed.

but that it was purchased at a Post Office miles away from the TSBD

Good, and that is exactly what I would do if I was buying a potential murder weapon that I did not want linked back to me..

a. Put all documentation (money orders, order forms return addresses) under a false name.

b. Purchase the money order and post the order form at a Post Office that is some distance away from where I work and where I live as is reasonably possible, and have the item send to the address for that false name in the hope that it cannot be traced back to me.

ETA: OH, and as for the GPO being "miles away" from the TSBD, that is just pure BS!

in 1963, the Dallas GPO was located in what is now the Historic Courthouse and USPO building at 400 Ervay Street. That is 1.4 km (less than a mile) from the TSBD, an easy 10 minute walk.

 

[manifesto]

You didn't click on the Homer Simpson link, did you? Or if you did, you didn't get the joke.

You already showed that was wrong in your initial post when you posted the postal regulations.

[/COLOR]

It doesn't mandate the language you claim, because it's not in quotes. And they specify similar language would do. So having a stamp prepared with the acceptable specifics is good enough.

Did you figure out how Oswald's handwriting got on the money order you claim is fraudulent?

Hank

Are this in quotes?

Pay to the order of Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago​

And, how do you explain the exact same wording on the to documents provided by Larson above? Coincidents?

And, you did not answer this:

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.​

Also in the regulations. Why no show of this neither on the Hidell PMO?

 

[JayUtah]

I’m saying it is very easy to decide if the weapon have NOT been fired.

But that's not all you're saying. You're claiming that this is a test that should have been done at the crime scene at the time the rifle was discovered. And that because this test was not done, the crime scene investigation is suspect. The only foundation you've laid for this is "common sense." You haven't show that this is actually something law enforcement does. You have to do that before you can claim it to be a standard that was violated in this case. Your "common sense" does not establish actual, documentable, practical law enforcement procedure.

Do you think you can wrap your head around that?

I have, and I have shown how it is irrelevant. Your argument fails by subversion of support.

 

[Axxman300]

Nobody is talking about if the weapon has been fired or how long ago it has been fired. I’m saying it is very easy to decide if the weapon have NOT been fired.

Dead President = Fired.

Ballistics match bullets to Carcano = Fired.

Do you think you can wrap your head around that?

Way ahead of you.

 

[HSienzant]

Are this in quotes?

Pay to the order of Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago​

No, it's not. Thanks for proving my point. That specific language is NOT in the regulations you cited.

And, how do you explain the exact same wording on the to documents provided by Larson above? Coincidents?

Asked and answered. That language is acceptable, but so is multiple permutations of that language, including the stamp used on the money order Oswald sent to Klein's to purchase the rifle. The one that reads:

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

And, you did not answer this:

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.​

Also in the regulations. Why no show of this neither on the Hidell PMO?

Sigh. You don't read - or don't understand - what you yourself quoted. It goes on to say:

"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 regulations are saying the necessary endorsements are assumed by law to be present even if they aren't physically stamped on the money order by the sending bank.

Since the sending bank was the First National Bank of Chicago, and their name is stamped on the back of the money order, no further stamp is required. The Fed knows which bank it came from, and knows where to go to get their money back, if the money order is fraudulent.

Hank