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

[Axxman300]

This imports to the participants the notion that they would be subjected to additional scrutiny. You are placing so much emphasis on the supposed rigor that would be needed only because you have the blessing of hindsight, of 50 years of conspiracy wrangling that retrospectively gave the autopsy more scrutiny. The autopsy is important to you, therefore you surmise it must have been of equal importance, and for the same reasons, to the participants. And then you impose an improper standard of proof based on that skewed perspective.

He ignores the conditions in which the autopsy took place. It was performed in an operating room with many people watching from above. Some of them were Kennedy Administration people, and lots of brass. A few floors above was RFK waiting to take possession of the body.

The clock was ticking, and oh, yeah, your job is to cut open the President of the United States of America.

No pressure, right?

CTists always leave out the human factor.

 

[manifesto]

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.

I’m still not claiming that he is an ”expert”. I have the opinion that he has found conclusive evidence of federal regulations from 1963 that says that PMO’s should have certain stamps on them not present on the Hidell PMO.

I cite his evidence and I cite his arguments because I find it convincing. Not because i claim that he is an ”expert”.

If you have any issue with the cited evidence and the cited arguments from Larsen, state it in a clear and comprehensive manner and let go of your straw man attacks.

It’s ugly.

 

[bknight]

I’m still not claiming that he is an ”expert”. I have the opinion that he has found conclusive evidence of federal regulations from 1963 that says that PMO’s should have certain stamps on them not present on the Hidell PMO.

I cite his evidence and I cite his arguments because I find it convincing. Not because i claim that he is an ”expert”.

If you have any issue with the cited evidence and the cited arguments from Larsen, state it in a clear and comprehensive manner and let go of your straw man attacks.

It’s ugly.

This is moot the money order was paid.

 

[smartcooky]

1. Do you agree that there should be at least one bank endorsement stamp on the PMO?

Yes, I agree, and there is one on the Hidell money order. It reads

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

2. Do you agree that there is no date or ABA transit number printed/stamped on the PMO

I agree there is not, but since the presence of an ABA transit number is only a recommendation, not a mandatory requirement, the fact that one is not present on the Hidell money order is unsurprising.

”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.”

"Should" means this is only a recommendation, not a mandatory requirement. The fact that one is not present on the Hidell money order is unsurprising.

 

[traxy]

He ignores the conditions in which the autopsy took place. It was performed in an operating room with many people watching from above. Some of them were Kennedy Administration people, and lots of brass. A few floors above was RFK waiting to take possession of the body.

The clock was ticking, and oh, yeah, your job is to cut open the President of the United States of America.

No pressure, right?

CTists always leave out the human factor.

The entire autopsy was done in 4 hours. That's not nearly enough time, which is why, predictably, steps were missed like measuring the exact placement of the headwound.

 

[manifesto]

You have claimed on the basis of your private reading of federal regulations that a mandated action was not carried out.

Have I? Where did I do this?

Cite.

You have used that premise to argue that a key piece of documentary evidence in the Oswald case cannot be authentic.

No. I have tried to show that the Hidell PMO are missing stamps the federal regulations say should be there.

This discussion is still ongoing. When this is settled, next step is to see what this could say of the authenticity of the PMO.

If it can be shown that this regulations was commonly disregarded, its evidantiary value as a sign of forgery disapperears.

One step at a time.

That line of reasoning only works if the omitted action was mandatory. If it was optional or discretionary you have no case.

No, your line of reasoning only works as a straw man.

I have NOT claimed ”mandatory legal duty”. I have claimed ”federal regulations” and cited them in full.

It is YOU who need to step back and have a look at your straw man-machine.

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

Yes this was a suggested interpretation I presented.

You are disputing this interpretation? Why?

...and no, your interpretation is wrong.

So, what is the ”right” interpretation? Be concise.

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.

I’m in a general sense ”unwilling” to accept anything claimed by anyone I do not know. Especially if the person is a known fanatical ”anti-conspirascist”.

Show me the credentials and/or the evidence and you have my ear.

That said, I have so far NOT claimed that the regulations cited are ”mandatory” this and that. I have claimed that the regulations state what type of bank endorsement stamps should be on a PMO and that these stamps are missing on the Hidell PMO.

What this actually means regarding the authenticity of the Hidell PMO is another question which I’ll discuss when the question of what is regulated is settled.

 

[manifesto]

The entire autopsy was done in 4 hours. That's not nearly enough time, which is why, predictably, steps were missed like measuring the exact placement of the headwound.

Is this handwaving or what?

 

[JayUtah]

I’m still not claiming that he is an ”expert”.

Irrelevant; you're treating him as if he were. I already explained how, and you didn't address that.

If you have any issue with the cited evidence and the cited arguments from Larsen, state it in a clear and comprehensive manner and let go of your straw man attacks.

Already did that a number of times. You obviously just don't want to hear it. You want the rebuttal to be one you are prepared for, not one that your critics think is the strongest.

The evidence is in the form of stylized regulatory language that carries a precise meaning irrespective of its plain-reading meaning. Larsen, not being an expert in that style, has misinterpreted the language. The meaning he is trying to apply to the document is not the meaning intended by the regulation's authors. This is leading him wrongly to dismiss the document as not being indicative of proper handling. You, not either being an expert in that style, have latched onto that same error and refuse to be educated to the contrary. As long as you remain willfully ignorant, no one can help you.

The proper reading of the regulation has been explained to you. You've apparently done zero research on your own to determine the correct version of the reading before dismissing your instructor as ignorant. You're all too eager to believe Larsen without any credentials or experience, but you question the competence of anyone who disagrees with you. That's an obvious double standard.

 

[manifesto]

Yes, I agree, and there is one on the Hidell money order. It reads

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

This is not a bank endorsement stamp.

Do you agree that the federal regulations states that there should be bank endorsement stamps on both sides of a PMO

I agree there is not, but since the presence of an ABA transit number is only a recommendation, not a mandatory requirement, the fact that one is not present on the Hidell money order is unsurprising.

IF your ”recommendation” is the correct interpretation, and I say IF, why do you think that the federal regulations contains this ”rekommendation”?

"Should" means this is only a recommendation, not a mandatory requirement. The fact that one is not present on the Hidell money order is unsurprising.

So why state this in a regulatory way?

Could it be that following this regulation guarantees that the user is secured in case something goes wrong?

 

[traxy]

Is this handwaving or what?

No, it's common sense.

Handwaving is what you do every time the autopsy evidence is brought up.

How about it? Read the report yet? Here it is for the sixth time. I suggest you brush up.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/contents.htm

To dumb it down to a few sentences for you, the panel of experts (photo experts, optical scientists, anthropologists, radiologists, scientists in image processing and medical biophysics) examined the autopsy photos and x-rays.

They found that the subject of the photos is indisputably John F Kennedy, that the photos were all taken during the same session, and that the photos have not been manipulated or altered in any way.

They also found that the subect of the x-rays is indisputably John F Kennedy and that the x-rays have not been manipulated or altered in any way.

Once you determine that the photos and x-rays are legitimate, the 2 or 3 inch discrepancy in measurement doesn't mean a thing.

 

[JayUtah]

Have I? Where did I do this?

Well, below for starters.

Cite.

No. You don't read or follow them.

I have tried to show that the Hidell PMO are missing stamps the federal regulations say should be there.

How is that not a claim "on the basis of your private reading of federal regulations that a mandated action was not carried out?" Your protest above appears to be nothing but a knee-jerk.

If it can be shown that this regulations was commonly disregarded, its evidantiary value as a sign of forgery disapperears.

Straw man. The regulations simply don't convey the meaning you think they do.

You are disputing this interpretation? Why?

Because it's based on an assumption we've shown you is wrong. Moreover, you have denied previously that you are doing any interpretation. You are claiming that the federal regulations read just so, and that no interpretation is required to get at the meaning you say is operative in this line of reasoning. Now that you've admitted you are interpreting we can continue to the process where you prove your interpretation is the correct one out of all those possible. Let's hope we can do this without you trying to reverse the burden of proof.

So, what is the ”right” interpretation? Be concise.

OKBob already gave it to you.

I’m in a general sense ”unwilling” to accept anything claimed by anyone I do not know.

How exactly do you know Larsen?

Especially if the person is a known fanatical ”anti-conspirascist”.

Ad hominem.

Show me the credentials...

Show me Larsen's.

That said, I have so far NOT claimed that the regulations cited are ”mandatory” this and that. I have claimed that the regulations state what type of bank endorsement stamps should be on a PMO and that these stamps are missing on the Hidell PMO.

Which would only be a problem if they were mandatory. If they were discretionary or advisory, then their omission is not a problem for authenticity. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

...the question of what is regulated is settled.

It is settled. You just don't like how it was rebutted. You wanted a rebuttal that didn't call out that you don't know what you're talking about and that this is why you got the wrong answer.

 

[RoboTimbo]

<snip citing CT idiot Larsen>

If you believe he isn't an idiot, post his qualifications for interpreting federal regulations.

 

[JayUtah]

So why state this in a regulatory way?

"In a regulatory way" is imprecise. It is stated as part of the regulation to establish the desirable method. It is not stated using language that mandates it.

Could it be that following this regulation guarantees that the user is secured in case something goes wrong?

Every regulation has a purpose. However, it doesn't follow that not following a regulation necessarily leads to an abrogation of that purpose. It could be -- and apparently is in this case -- that there are multiple avenues of compliance, any one of which leads to an acceptable compromise between the interests of all the parties.

 

[RoboTimbo]

<snip handwaving>

Was the money order dishonored or was it paid? Cite.

 

[RoboTimbo]

<snip running away>

Was the money order paid? Explain.

 

[manifesto]

Irrelevant; you're treating him as if he were. I already explained how, and you didn't address that.

No I don’t. I am citing his sources and is arguments, not because he is an ”expert”, but because I find his sources and argument convincing.

This guy is completely unknown to me. It is irrelevant who he is and/or what expertise he allegedly have or not have.

If you have problem with his sources and his arguments, you have had ample opportunity to state them. You don’t. Instead you are creating a straw man in order to talk your way around what is at stake:

- Does the federal regulations state that there should be certain bank endorsement stamps, not present on the Hidell PMO?

This is it. Nothing more, just this. Get it?

Already did that a number of times. You obviously just don't want to hear it. You want the rebuttal to be one you are prepared for, not one that your critics think is the strongest.

The evidence is in the form of stylized regulatory language that carries a precise meaning irrespective of its plain-reading meaning. Larsen, not being an expert in that style, has misinterpreted the language. The meaning he is trying to apply to the document is not the meaning intended by the regulation's authors. This is leading him wrongly to dismiss the document as not being indicative of proper handling. You, not either being an expert in that style, have latched onto that same error and refuse to be educated to the contrary. As long as you remain willfully ignorant, no one can help you.

Straw man. Larsen have NOT tried to apply any meaning to the document. His only ambition has been to see if the federal regulations states that there should be certain bank endorsement stamps on a PMO from 1963 that is not present on the Hidell PMO.

His conclusion is that, yes, the regulations states that it should.

What this says of the authenticity is another questions, which he also states loud and clear repetedly through the thread.

IF there can be shown that this regulation, for whatever reasons, wasn’t commonly followed at the time, its value as evidence for a fraudelent Hidell PMO would vaporize.

If there on the other hand is no such indications, that the regulations instead was followed in almost all cases, the missing stamps are ’evidence’ of a suspect forgery which should be viewed in the light of all the other instances of suspect tampering of evidence, connected to the alleged Hidell-purchase of the alleged murder weapon.

Of course.

The proper reading of the regulation has been explained to you. You've apparently done zero research on your own to determine the correct version of the reading before dismissing your instructor as ignorant. You're all too eager to believe Larsen without any credentials or experience, but you question the competence of anyone who disagrees with you. That's an obvious double standard.

In this instance it doesn’t matter what ”reading” is applied. What matters is IF THE REGULATIONS STATES THAT CERTAIN BANK ENDORSEMENT STAMPS SHOULD BE PRESENT ON A 1963 PMO, NOT PRESENT ON THE HIDELL PMO.

Do you get it, JayUtah? Only that, nothing else.

 

[smartcooky]

This is not a bank endorsement stamp.

Do you agree that the federal regulations states that there should be bank endorsement stamps on both sides of a PMO

"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 Klein's stamp is a prior endorsement

IF your ”recomendation” is the correct interpretation, and I say IF,

There is no "IF" about it. It is the correct interpretation according to the Federal Plain Language Guidelines, which is the reference publication for the way Federal Regulations are to be written. (The fact that this is a 2011 publication is irrelevant. It is a formalisation based on all previous plain language writing practises)

See section III a. 1 iv

Instead of using “shall”, use:

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

https://www.plainlanguage.gov/media/FederalPLGuidelines.pdf

why do you think that the federal regulations contains this ”recomendation”?

IMO, its because the regulator understands that making such a requirement mandatory would require manual double handling of each and every minor financial instrument. That would totally bog down a system which, even by the late 1950's, was handling millions of financial transactions every day.

Additionally, in the case of a possible fraudulent document, PMO's that were banked into an account were traceable as to where the money had gone so even if it was not stamped with all the possible stamps, the Fed could still get its money back. This would not be so in the case of the payee presenting themselves at the counter to get the money in cash where it would be difficult to get the money back in the case of a fraudulent PMO. This is why you would likely only find all the bank stamps on a payee-presented PMO, because it was one that hand to be manually transacted anyway.

So why state this in a regulatory way?

What does that even mean? You do understand that the Plain Language Guidelines tells the reg writer how to write in a "regulatory way"?

Could it be that following this regulation guarantees that the user is secured in case something goes wrong?

The user?

Whether you like it or not, the regulation quoted above means that the Fed accepts all prior endorsements, and they consider a stamp like Klien's endorsement stamp to be an acceptable substitute for a bank's own endorsement stamp.

 

[RoboTimbo]

If you have problem with his sources and his arguments, you have had ample opportunity to state them. You don’t. Instead you are creating a straw man in order to talk your way around what is at stake:

I stopped reading at your first lie. Did you tell any truths after that?

 

[JayUtah]

No I don’t. I am citing his sources and is arguments, not because he is an ”expert”, but because I find his sources and argument convincing.

Asked and answered. You find his argument convincing because you think he has expended the effort to understand federal regulations and then to apply his judgment from that understanding to existing circumstances. That's an argument from expertise. It is not lay testimony based on his having observed something with his senses. It is not a line of reasoning based on undisputed facts to which cogent syllogisms are applied. Calling it something else doesn't change what it is.

This guy is completely unknown to me.

Then why do you trust him?

It is irrelevant who he is and/or what expertise he allegedly have or not have.

You told us you don't trust people you don't know. You used that to dismiss OKBob out of hand, because you don't know him. But you don't know Larsen either, and you allow yourself to be convinced by him. It seems that your desire to trust someone has nothing to do with whether you know them, and everything to do with whether they're reinforcing your belief.

If you have problem with his sources and his arguments, you have had ample opportunity to state them.

I have.

You don’t. Instead you are creating a straw man in order to talk your way around what is at stake.

No, I'm just not following your script. You want to constrain your critics into only certain kinds of rebuttals that you think you're prepared to handle. You're unable to address this rebuttal, so you're pretending it's improper.

Does the federal regulations state that there should be certain bank endorsement stamps, not present on the Hidell PMO?

This is it. Nothing more, just this. Get it?

"Should" in regulatory language does not mean "shall" or "must." Get it?

Larsen have NOT tried to apply any meaning to the document.

It is impossible to read something without drawing a meaning. Larsen is reading the regulation and drawing what he thinks is its meaning. He is then applying the meaning he drew from the regulation to the circumstances in the document. But the meaning he draws from the regulation is wrong because he is unfamiliar with how regulations are written. So his judgment of the implications of that regulation for the authenticity of the document have no foundation.

His conclusion is that, yes, the regulations states that it should.

His conclusion is based on his errant reading of the regulation. It is therefore unsupported.

 

[smartcooky]

This guy is completely unknown to me.

Then why do you trust him

That is a very good question, given...

I’m in a general sense ”unwilling” to accept anything claimed by anyone I do not know.