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

[bknight]

The only thing I have claimed so far is that the Hidell PMO are missing endorsing bank stamps regulated by the Federal Reserve.

Next step is to see in what way this could be evidence of a forgery.

One step at a time:

1. Does it comply to the regulations concerning bank endorsement stamps?

2. What does it say of its authenticity if not?

That is, if it can be shown that it was fairly common to skip the regulated stamps, the missing stamps are not evidence of forgery.

One step at a time.

All of this is moot, because the money order was paid!

 

[HSienzant]

- ”I’m citing Larsen because he is the one who did the actual research, citing and sourcing it in the Ed.Forum thread...”

Where do I find the claim I make that Larsen is an ”expert”? Do you need to be an ”expert” to find and present documented evidence?

If someone disagree with me, that someone has to show me some evidence.

- ”Explain why Larsen is wrong here. Cite. Explain. Argue”

Where do I challange you to ”prove” Larsen wrong? I asked you to point out your differences in order to clearify your opinion on the issues at hand. Not to ”prove” him wrong.

No. If someone disagree with me, that someone has to show me some evidence.

Do you see the difference?

No. If someone disagree with me, that someone has to show me some evidence.

]It is not semantics, it cuts to the core of your MO. Stop refrasing questions to you in order to get an upper hand.

It’s ugly.

Still quibbling. You clearly were citing Larsen as the expert, quoting a response to another poster where he claimed I was wrong based on - well, his opinion. You clearly challenged me to prove Larsen wrong. It's your obligation to prove him right. Anything less is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. Let's not forget that.

Calling it 'ugly' doesn't change what you did. Claiming it 'cuts to the core of my MO' doesn't change it either.

In an earlier post you called me a liar. I'm still waiting for you to establish that.

Why are you lying, Hank?

Hank

 

[smartcooky]

All of this is moot, because the money order was paid!

That's right, recorded as paid into Klien's accounts back in March of 1963.

Occams Razor. if there was a conspiracy to fit up Oswald as the patsy, then why not just buy the rifle back then in March 1963, using a real PMO and a real order form from Kleins. Then there would be no need to

Forge the order form
Forge the PMO
Bring Kleins' owner into the conspiracy
Bring the First National Bank of Chicago into the conspiracy
Bring the Federal reserve into the conspiracy

Just buy it the same way Oswald actually did. The hold on it, fire it to get some bullets (and to prove it had been fored) then plant it and the spent cartridges in the 6th floor and plant the bullets in the limo, JFK and at Parklands Hospital.

 

[HSienzant]

That's right, recorded as paid into Klien's accounts back in March of 1963.

Occams Razor. if there was a conspiracy to fit up Oswald as the patsy, then why not just buy the rifle back then in March 1963, using a real PMO and a real order form from Kleins. Then there would be no need to

Forge the order form
Forge the PMO
Bring Kleins' owner into the conspiracy
Bring the First National Bank of Chicago into the conspiracy
Bring the Federal reserve into the conspiracy

Just buy it the same way Oswald actually did. The hold on it, fire it to get some bullets (and to prove it had been fored) then plant it and the spent cartridges in the 6th floor and plant the bullets in the limo, JFK and at Parklands Hospital.

Remember, according to manifesto, the conspirators had a unlimited budget for this operation. If you don't spend it all, your budget gets cut the following year. It's tough to spend an unlimited budget unless you do everything the hard way.

The cover up is still in operation and have unlimited resources at its disposal. Unlimited.

It even says that in the conspiracy / cover-up manual: "All operations *shall* be performed in the most difficult way imaginable".

What's half of an unlimited budget? Still unlimited, right? Every year they cut the budget for the coverup in half, and every year it still stays unlimited!

I hope everyone here is getting their share ... which - that's right - should be *unlimited*.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

...

Yo Hank,

Since you have been arguing against the EOP wound almost every day for 2 years straight on the same thread, why not take it to the Education Forum where you are also active? People there know a lot more, so you might get a more stimulating discussion. If that's what you're truly after.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24967-the-autopsy-pathologists-thought-the-exit-in-the-head-was-anatomically-higher-than-the-entrance/

 

[RoboTimbo]

People who pejoratively use the label ”CT” or worse = member of the Mighty Church of the Lone Nut, or worse.

Have you ever used the label ”CT” or worse on someone who is convinced of a conspiracy behind the assassination of JFK?

If not, I apologize, sincerely.

Do you deny being a CT?

 

[RoboTimbo]

The only thing I have claimed so far is that the Hidell PMO are missing endorsing bank stamps regulated by the Federal Reserve.

Next step is to see in what way this could be evidence of a forgery.

One step at a time:

1. Does it comply to the regulations concerning bank endorsement stamps?

2. What does it say of its authenticity if not?

That is, if it can be shown that it was fairly common to skip the regulated stamps, the missing stamps are not evidence of forgery.

One step at a time.

Can you show evidence that the money order wasn't honored by the bank?

 

[RoboTimbo]

<snip running away>

manifesto , were you ever able to have any knowledge to be able to answer the 100+ questions you habitually run away from like a CT?

Why did Oswald murder Officer Tippit and then attempt to murder more officers in the theater when they had him cornered? He still had the same gun he murdered Tippit with.

Why is that?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yo Hank,

Since you have been arguing against the EOP wound almost every day for 2 years straight on the same thread, why not take it to the Education Forum where you are also active? People there know a lot more, so you might get a more stimulating discussion. If that's what you're truly after.

Is that because you and the rest of the CTs have clearly had your asses handed to you in advocating for any of the claims you've made here? I think your fellow CT religionists are going to be unhappy when they find out how accurately you've represented the typical CT.

 

[abaddon]

This thread is comedy gold. Watching the two or three hoax proponents dodging each others mutually conflicting fantasies is particularly piquant.

 

[HSienzant]

Yo Hank,

Since you have been arguing against the EOP wound almost every day for 2 years straight on the same thread, why not take it to the Education Forum where you are also active?

When was the last post of mine there? I'm not 'also active' there. Your claim is false.
EDIT: Just checked: last post was 12/27/2015 & 60 posts in total on that forum in my life ... this is where MicahJava claims I am 'also active'.

People there know a lot more

No, CT arguments are CT arguments.

so you might get a more stimulating discussion.

Been there, tried that. It's the same old tired CT arguments - look, is that a Mauser? What about all those grassy knoll witnesses? Oswald couldn't have made those shots... etc.. ad nauseum.

If that's what you're truly after.

Instead of the begging the question fallacies and veiled insults I get here, you mean?

Are you saying you're not up to the task?

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

You do not have to be an ”expert” to find and present documented evidence.

But you do in order to properly interpret it, which is what he was trying to do. And yes, to read and present them is to interpret them whether you want to face that reality or not.

 

[JayUtah]

I have not claimed ”mandatory legal duty”. I have claimed ”federal regulations”.

You have claimed on the basis of your private reading of federal regulations that a mandated action was not carried out. You have used that premise to argue that a key piece of documentary evidence in the Oswald case cannot be authentic. That line of reasoning only works if the omitted action was mandatory. If it was optional or discretionary you have no case.

That is...

When you use this phrase in this way, that's you interpreting.

...if you want to follow the regulations, this is the way to do it.

...and no, your interpretation is wrong.

Nothing more than that.

Despite your effort to simplify away important distinctions, it is more than that. Laws and regulations in English are written in a certain language to minimize the ways in which they can be misconstrued. It's important to know exactly what is required not only because regulations are designed to guide behavior toward efficient and productive ends, but also because there are penalties attached to disobedience. In English lawwriting, the mandating verbs are "shall" and "must." Your unwillingness to grasp the nuances of English does not create a gallows upon which you can hang your accused perpetrators.

 

[traxy]

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?

He didn't link to "the Internet". He linked you to the exact pages that contained the exact evidence and statements you were requesting. If he had copied and pasted the content of those pages into a post, you'd have replied with "Source?"

This isn't about learning anything new for you, it's about dragging the argument out as long as you can.

 

[OKBob]

• “must” for an obligation
• “must not” for a prohibition
• “may” for a discretionary action
• “should” for a recommendation.
[/COLOR]

How does this fit in with your experience?

That's just about bang on with what I've been trying to convey to manifesto. Thanks, smartcooky.

 

[manifesto]

You stated it was page one sentence one in some mythical Criminal Investigation Manual. Criminology 101 or some such nonsense. It is not. It is not a standard procedure.

Figure of speech.

That the bullets recovered

There is no chain of custody. IF fired by the alleged murder weapon, they can have been fired at another point in time and planted or falsely stated found on the stecher and in the limo.

could only have been fired from that rifle is unassailable as JFK was killed by those bullets at 12:30 11/22/63. That means that the rifle was fired.

No chain of custody, no proof of being that point in time IF fired from that rifle at all.

Add to that that the chain of custody of the ”magic bullet” is probable fabricated and situation completely turns around. The ”evidence” of the alleged murder weapon being used to assassinate JFK transforms to evidence of a frame-up and a cover up to protect the real assassins.

There is absolutely no need to stick a finger in the muzzle.

I was using figure of speech.

I have not checked it’s in some crime investigation manual, but that is still my claim. My claim is that this is the first thing I would do if finding a suspect murder weapon an hour after it possibly could have been fired. To see if it NOT has been fired.

It takes a couple of seconds and if NOT been fired, continue the search of possible murder weapon/s in a very critical point in time. The hours just after the crime when the chances to catch a killer/killers are the best.

You would NOT check the weapon to see if it had NOT been fired?

 

[manifesto]

That's just about bang on with what I've been trying to convey to manifesto. Thanks, smartcooky.

So why federal REGULATIONS if not regulatory?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Figure of speech.


There is no chain of custody. IF fired by the alleged murder weapon, they can have been fired at another point in time and planted or falsely stated found on the stecher and in the limo.

What does the WCR have to say about it?

No chain of custody, no proof of being that point in time IF fired from that rifle at all.

This is one of those things you have just made up.

Add to that that the chain of custody of the ”magic bullet” is probable fabricated and situation completely turns around. The ”evidence” of the alleged murder weapon being used to assassinate JFK transforms to evidence of a frame-up and a cover up to protect the real assassins.

You don't get to use made up nonsense to prove your made up nonsense.

I was using figure of speech.

I have not checked it’s in some crime investigation manual, but that is still my claim. My claim is that this is the first thing I would do if finding a suspect murder weapon an hour after it possibly could have been fired. To see if it NOT has been fired.

Cover page of the Investigator's Manual in big warning letters:

The investigator will not perform any idiotic "tests" dreamed up by random uninformed nobodies "​

Weird how they had that smiley back in 1963. Probably just a figure of speech.

It takes a couple of seconds and if NOT been fired, continue the search of possible murder weapon/s in a very critical point in time. The hours just after the crime when the chances to catch a killer/killers are the best.

Has that been your experience in criminal investigations? LOL.

You would NOT check the weapon to see if it had NOT been fired?

See "The Investigator's Manual" cover page.

 

[manifesto]

He didn't link to "the Internet". He linked you to the exact pages that contained the exact evidence and statements you were requesting.

Since I know that this is NOT the case, I asked Axxman to cite the relevant parts and argue for its veracity. I can’t know what Axxman specifically find cinvincing. Only Axxman knows that.

If he had copied and pasted the content of those pages into a post, you'd have replied with "Source?"

No, I would have replied with ”cite the relevant parts, explain it if needed and argue for its veracity.

Only Axxman knows what Axxman find convincing.

This isn't about learning anything new for you, it's about dragging the argument out as long as you can.

It is about learning on what evidence Axxman makes his claim. As I said, I have read through the relevant documents but I need Axxman to tell me what Axxman find convincing in order to responde to Axxmans claim.

Do you understand?

 

[RoboTimbo]

So why federal REGULATIONS if not regulatory?

Why indeed? Explain. Argue. Cite.