No. If someone disagree with me, that someone has to show me some evidence. Claiming Mighty authority without evidence is a trait usually to be expected from a Mighty Church.
Ah.
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge
- Thread starter BStrong
- Start date
- Status
Ah.
HSienzant
Philosopher
It is:
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.
The regulations cited say that's acceptable.
Hank
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, that tends to be where we keep evidence of historical events.
So, if I provide a link to NARA in respons to a request for specific evidence, you would go along with it?
Start searching for it?
HSienzant
Philosopher
Day's testimony about how carefully the rifle was handled contradicts your claims, which you present no evidence for.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. What else did you do in connection with the rifle at that particular time?
Mr. DAY. Captain Fritz was present. After we got the photographs I asked him if he was ready for me to pick it up, and he said, yes. I picked the gun up by the wooden stock. I noted that the stock was too rough apparently to take fingerprints, so I picked it up, and Captain Fritz opened the bolt as I held the gun. A live round fell to the floor.
...
Mr. BELIN. Did you dust the bolt for fingerprints?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Before the live round was ejected?
Mr. DAY. No, no; the only part that Captain Fritz touched was the round nob. I looked at it through a glass and decided there was not a print there, and it would be safe for him to open the bolt.
Mr. BELIN. You did this before it was ejected, before the live round was ejected?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Who held the rifle while you looked at it with the glass?
Mr. DAY. I held it.
Mr. BELIN. In one hand?
Mr. DAY. One hand, using the glass with the other.
== UNQUOTE ==
- Your suspicions are not evidence.
- Because this non-standard procedure was being used all over the country and the Dallas Police knew all about this?
Well, you have an imagined test, you have an admittedly non-standard procedure, and the fact they didn't mention the results of a test you can't establish they performed - or anyone performed in crime investigation, for that matter - establishes to your satisfaction they performed the test and got negative results?
Wow. Nothing screams "conspiracy theorist = no evidence" better than that.
Don't need your imaginary test. We've got the ballistic results. They establish beyond any doubt that Oswald's C2766 rifle that he ordered, paid for with the money order in evidence, and had shipped to his PO box was the rifle used in the assassination.
They heard a rifle. Only one rifle was recovered on the sixth floor. It was Oswald's weapon, bearing the serial number C2766.
You're walking that ledge. What rifle are you suggesting was fired by Oswald from there, if not Oswald's rifle that was found on that floor?
Nothing 'magical' or 'spooky' about the only rifle recovered being determined to be the murder weapon when six items of ballistic evidence are linked to that rifle and those six items found in the sniper's nest window, in the limo, and in the hospital where the victims were taken.
Hank
HSienzant
Philosopher
Does that work both ways, or only for you?
Do you have to show me some evidence when you disagree with me?
Oswald fired all the shots that killed Kennedy and wounded Connally. He fired the only shots fired during the assassination.
If you disagree with that, show me the evidence.
As you recall, I listed 100 claims you made that you never supported.
I'm still waiting, and I'm certain you'll get to all those points real soon.
Your claiming mighty authority without evidence is a trait usually to be expected from a mighty church. The church of the bloody fruit cake.
Hank
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, it would be my responsibility first to accept what was given in answer to my request and demonstrate a good-faith effort before complaining. But without even a cursory examination, you rejected the evidence you asked for and are now trying to make it seem like it was reasonable to do so. I consider it analogous to when you asked me for specifics on a certain question, and I gave them to you, and now you claim the privilege of ignoring it if you feel like it. You have a pattern of asking for things you never intend to address, probably just to burden your critics with unnecessary and onerous production. Now, just as then, you're trying to come up with a Plan B now that your bluff has been called.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Here's your biggest whopper.
I think you
have done a great public service by insisting that your lies be pointed out.Major Major
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 438
Here's your biggest whopper.
I think you
Ever read Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series? The man who becomes dictator of the Confederacy after its defeat in the second War Between the States, and launches it into a catastrophic Third War Between the States, always begins his radio broadcasts, "I'm Jake Featherston and I'm here to tell you the truth."
That's not a very good image to evoke.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Here's a bunch you
have no clue about:The rest was just too goofy to qualify.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
When you can establish that, upon discovery of a firearm suspected to be a possible murder weapon, "sticking the tip of your finger in the pipe and chamber" was a standard forensic technique used by the Dallas Police Department, or any other police department, in 1963 , then we can progress further.
One thing at a time manifesto, remember?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
It would be quicker to cite the things you haven't made up!
This is the signature, Micah Mileto asking Sandy Larsen about your proclamations in the thread at Edu.Forum, Hank.
Micah Mileto:
”Just to be absolutely crystal clear, Hank's idea about the real bank endorsement being "Pay to the order of The First National Bank of Chicago" is totally incorrect, right?”
Sandy Larsen:
”Micah,
Yes, you are right. Hank was wrong.
The First National Bank of Chicago was Klein's Sporting Goods' bank. When Klein's deposited a check or money order, they would first endorse it by stamping it on the back with the "Pay to the order of" stamp that you speak of. Notably, the stamp included Klein's bank account number, so there would be no confusion as to which account the money would be deposited to.
The next thing that would have happened is the First National Bank of Chicago would deposit the money order to their account with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. The bank would have to endorse the money order before submitting it to the Federal Reserve Bank. THAT WAS NOT DONE.
The whole point of this thread was to prove that federal law required such an endorsement on postal money orders in 1963. I thought I'd done so in Post #1, but later realized that the law I pointed to was for a special type of postal money order. But if you go to that post, there is a link to the corrected proof.
The next step for the money order would have been for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago to stamp it. We do see a file locator number (FLN) stamped on the front by the Federal Reserve Bank, but not an endorsement on the back. John Armstrong did a write-up that states that an FRB endorsement on the back was required. But he provides no references, so we can't say that it's been proved that that stamp was required.
Note that the FLN is not an endorsement... it's purpose is to facilitate locating the money order after it's been put in storage.”
Yes, you are right. Hank was wrong.
The First National Bank of Chicago was Klein's Sporting Goods' bank. When Klein's deposited a check or money order, they would first endorse it by stamping it on the back with the "Pay to the order of" stamp that you speak of. Notably, the stamp included Klein's bank account number, so there would be no confusion as to which account the money would be deposited to.
The next thing that would have happened is the First National Bank of Chicago would deposit the money order to their account with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. The bank would have to endorse the money order before submitting it to the Federal Reserve Bank. THAT WAS NOT DONE.
The whole point of this thread was to prove that federal law required such an endorsement on postal money orders in 1963. I thought I'd done so in Post #1, but later realized that the law I pointed to was for a special type of postal money order. But if you go to that post, there is a link to the corrected proof.
The next step for the money order would have been for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago to stamp it. We do see a file locator number (FLN) stamped on the front by the Federal Reserve Bank, but not an endorsement on the back. John Armstrong did a write-up that states that an FRB endorsement on the back was required. But he provides no references, so we can't say that it's been proved that that stamp was required.
Note that the FLN is not an endorsement... it's purpose is to facilitate locating the money order after it's been put in storage.”
Explain why Larsen is wrong here. Cite. Explain. Argue.
I have never claimed that this was standard procedure. I claim that it is a bit puzzling why they were not curious of if the rifle had NOT been fired and if so, excluded it on the spot from being the murder weapon and continued their search.
I’m mean, it takes a couple of seconds and it’s done?
I would be curious? Not you?
Is that the dude who told you of ”Juror Eight”?Ever read Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series? The man who becomes dictator of the Confederacy after its defeat in the second War Between the States, and launches it into a catastrophic Third War Between the States, always begins his radio broadcasts, "I'm Jake Featherston and I'm here to tell you the truth."
That's not a very good image to evoke.
No wonder you are fixated.
Let me know if I can be of any help.
Last edited:
Good to see your true colors, Traxy. Is it ok if I link to the ”Internet” next time you need to see specific evidence?
I mean, it contains all ”relevant items neatly ordered”?
Promise?
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
- Status