• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
manifesto said:
Is it, or is it not, easy to see (soot/not soot) if a weapon have NOT been fired?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you still haven't found any criminology textbook that mentions this suggested test, nor have you found any criminologist that endorses this suggested test.

I'm guessing you're still barking up the wrong tree because you desperately want there to be a squirrel up there.

Guess what? There isn't.

What you wish would have happened has no bearing on what did. Nor does your wishes call into question in any manner what was actually done.

Hank
 
OKBob said:
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?
Click to expand...
I would have given manifesto a pass since, as a non-native speaker, the meanings of "should" and "shall" might have passed him by, but having not only had the English meanings explained in detail in this very thread, the legal meanings were also explained in detail, in this very thread. Whatever pass I might have granted manifesto is long since expired.
 
HSienzant said:
I'm guessing you still haven't found any criminology textbook that mentions this suggested test, nor have you found any criminologist that endorses this suggested test.

I'm guessing you're still barking up the wrong tree because you desperately want there to be a squirrel up there.

Guess what? There isn't.

What you wish would have happened has no bearing on what did. Nor does your wishes call into question in any manner what was actually done.

Hank
Click to expand...

Maybe there's a sponge in the tree.:D
 
HSienzant said:
No, it's not. Thanks for proving my point. That specific language is NOT in the regulations you cited.
Click to expand...
Correct, my bad. This is the relevant part of the regulation:
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​

- To the order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent (in this case, Chicago).

or:

- To the order of any bank, banker or trust company.

Why the exact same wording on the two doucuments above: ”TO THE ORDER OF ANY BANK, BANKER OR TRUST COMPANY”?

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.​
Click to expand...
But that is not one of the two regulated wordings/stamps.

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
Click to expand...
So, why this clearly stated non ambigous 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.​

It says nothing about exceptions.
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
For the grownups in the room, this is the link to all of the Dallas Police Department assassination records:

https://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/JFKDP/#explore

All the chain of evidence Manifesto is clueless about can be found here.
Click to expand...
1. The three shells with two chains of custody of which none is supported by the evidence.

2. The ”ballistic items” with no chain of custody.

3. The ”magic” bullet with a chain of custody not supported by the evidence and contradicted by almost all allegedly involved handlers.

If you have evidence to the contrary in your DPD assassination records, show it.
 
Last edited:
manifesto said:
Is it, or is it not, easy to see (soot/not soot) if a weapon have NOT been fired?
Click to expand...

Yes it is easy to see if the weapon has been fired (soot)

However, there is no way to tell WHEN it was fired, it could be 10 minutes, ten days, ten hours, ten weeks... because 10 minute old soot looks, smells and feels the same as 10 hour old soot, or ten day old soot.....

IF you find a rifle with hot or a warm barrel, THEN, and ONLY THEN can you make a determination that the rifle was fired "recently", but you cannot quantify that down to an exact time. If the barrel is cold or back to room temperature at the time you find it, your opportunity to determine it has been fired recently has expired.

Can you wrap your head around this!?
 
abaddon said:
I would have given manifesto a pass since, as a non-native speaker, the meanings of "should" and "shall" might have passed him by, but having not only had the English meanings explained in detail in this very thread, the legal meanings were also explained in detail, in this very thread. Whatever pass I might have granted manifesto is long since expired.
Click to expand...
I quoted Miriam Webster for the vernacular definition. The fact that some member of the Mighty Church claims to be a Mighty legal expert claiming that the legal meaning is this and that does not impress no one outside your Church.

And stop lying. You have been attacking me from your first post, popping now and then with a hit and run.

”... would have given manifesto a pass”, my ass.
 
smartcooky said:
Yes it is easy to see if the weapon has been fired (soot)

However, there is no way to tell WHEN it was fired, it could be 10 minutes, ten days, ten hours, ten weeks... because 10 minute old soot looks, smells and feels the same as 10 hour old soot, or ten day old soot.....

IF you find a rifle with hot or a warm barrel, THEN, and ONLY THEN can you make a determination that the rifle was fired "recently", but you cannot quantify that down to an exact time. If the barrel is cold or back to room temperature at the time you find it, your opportunity to determine it has been fired recently has expired.

Can you wrap your head around this!?
Click to expand...
The issue is not WHEN it has been fired. The issue still is if it has NOT been fired.

- No soot = clean = not fired = could not have been used in the shooting at JFK.

- Soot = unclean = have been fired = could have been used in the shooting at JFK.
 
manifesto said:
The issue is not WHEN it has been fired. The issue still is if it has NOT been fired.

- No soot = clean = not fired = could not have been used in the shooting at JFK.

- Soot = unclean = have been fired = could have been used in the shooting at JFK.
Click to expand...

Are you ;) claiming that it wasn't fired?
 
Axxman300 said:
Maybe there's a sponge in the tree.:D
Click to expand...
A blood soaked sponge is used the world over in research of blood spatter from an incomming projectile.

The findings from this research is taught in courses in crimescene investigation all over the world and among them, courses held by the FBI.

So, Axxman, send your smileys to the FBI and see what response you get. I’ll bet they start looking through their registers for fitting profiles.

Just in case.
 
RoboTimbo said:
Are you ;) claiming that it wasn't fired?
Click to expand...
No, I’m claiming that they did not check if it had NOT been fired. Concidering it being the suspect murder weapon of the president of the United States, that lack of curiousity is somewhat, puzzling.

Not.
 
JayUtah said:
Which part are you enjoying? The debate?
Click to expand...
Yes, of course.

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.
Click to expand...
I answer in kind. But I agree, that is a good meassure of the crap thrown at me from all of the LN’s in the thread. It is a barrage.

They stop. I stop.
 
RoboTimbo said:
It's very difficult with imaginary weapons. Do you ;) have any actual weapons like the Carcano to test or are yours all imaginary?
Click to expand...
No, I have no weapons of any kind. But I did a year mandatory military service and was asigned a weapon with which I was supposed to kill human beings with in the case war broke out.

And yes, it is easy to see if a weapon has NOT been fired since the last cleaning.

Use a finger.
 
manifesto said:
1. The three shells with two chains of custody of which none is supported by the evidence.
Click to expand...

Lt. J.C. Day's affidavit on the confusion of the number of shells.

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340467/?q=LT. J.C. Day

Chain of evidence of the shells:

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339139/?q=LT. J.C. Day

DPD Property Clerk's Receipt of Items:

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340438/?q=LT. J.C. Day

The hand written receipt of the rifle shells:

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337332/?q=LT. J.C. Day

Statement by Fritz concerning the evidence found at the TSBD, and their handover to the FBI:

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339538/?q=LT. J.C. Day

I can do this all day. Where are your documents?

This is a list of all the items collected by DPD, and given to the FBI Crime Lab:

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339265/m1/1/?q=evidence

This is the FBI Crime Lab's Report back to DPD:

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337093/?q=evidence

Spoiler alert, Oswald's rifle fired the bullets that killed JFK.

You have nothing.;)
 
manifesto said:
No, I have no weapons of any kind. But I did a year mandatory military service and was asigned a weapon with which I was supposed to kill human beings with in the case war broke out.

And yes, it is easy to see if a weapon has NOT been fired since the last cleaning.

Use a finger.
Click to expand...

We know Oswald's Carcano was fired and when. I was referring to the imaginary ones that you are positing also were fired that day leaving no trace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom