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

[HSienzant]

...One example of these rules is cited below. Instead of using “shall”, use:

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

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.

I don't know exactly why these sections were written in an advisory mood, but I suspect that the use of "should" conveyed that no penalty would be levied as long as substantial compliance was observed. Many desiderata in the law are satisfied by substantial rather than strict compliance. Busy bureaucracies may be forgiven for minor slips. Perhaps they should be forgiven. Maybe they shall and must be forgiven.

I just created this phony website with a backdated story so I could cite it here as definitive:

https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/everyday-grammar-should-vs-shall/3107315.html

"The word should does not express a legal requirement. But shall, in the case of the climate agreement, does."​

And here's another one I threw together. The html code isn't finished yet, but it's good enough to cite:
http://reqexperts.com/blog/2012/10/using-the-correct-terms-shall-will-should/

Shall – Requirement: Shall is used to indicate a requirement that is contractually binding, meaning it must be implemented, and its implementation verified. Period! Don’t think of “shall” as a word, but rather as an icon that SCREAMS: “This is a requirement.” If a statement does not contain the word “shall” it is not a requirement.

In know…I know, “shall” is rather stilted and you probably don’t use it that often when talking with your pals, but use it when writing requirements. Remember, we are trying to communicate and it is much easier if we agree on the terms.

Should – Goals, non-mandatory provisions. Should is used to indicate a goal which must be addressed by the design team but is not formally verified.

Why include should (goal) statements in your requirement document? Because you may have a very important issue that you want to communicate to the developers, but can’t think of a way to do so in the form of a verifiable requirement.​

Manifesto, don't bother to read these. You know they were posted by someone who believes Oswald killed Kennedy, so you must believe it's all horse radish from the Mighty Church of the Lone Nutter. Besides, you wouldn't want to learn anything that's true, so stick to those CT sites.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

There is no chain of custody.

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.

​

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.

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.

​

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

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.

​

Add to that that the chain of custody of the ”magic bullet” is probable fabricated

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.

​

... 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.

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.

​

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I don't recall claiming infallibility on legal language. I don't know what you require in the way of "evidence" of my expertise. I don't think this list wants to get bogged down with everyone flaunting his or her formal credentials.

Mine will be brief. I have none. High school dropout (June 6, 1968). RFK died.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Hank never said what Micah said I said. Please quote me saying that's a bank endorsement. It's clearly the Klein's vendor stamp where they stamp the money order before depositing it. William Waldman even attested to that in his testimony.

Good. One issue cleared.

This was your cited authority (Sandy Larsen) calling me wrong for a statement I never made.

So, what do Waldman mean by this?

”... followed by our account No. 50 space 91144...”​

Good catch. Thanks.

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

In the legal sense of 'should' as explained above? Yes. It's a goal / suggestion but not mandatory.

Yes.

”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 'should', not 'shall'. Go be a hero. Post the difference between 'should' and 'shall' on that forum, enlighten everyone to the misunderstanding, and everyone will thank you for resolving the issue, sing your praises and they won't ever raise the money order as an issue again.

Only kidding. They will of course quibble with the definition, ask if there's any exceptions, pretend they never saw your point, and of course, accuse you of being a shill and selling out to the other side. And bring it up again two weeks later as if it were never discussed before. Try living life on this side of the argument for once.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Manifesto is now up to 83+ claims with no evidence provided.

Well, thank you Hans for your rather modest accessment. Hank is up in way over a hundred instances of me claiming something without providing evidence. Good, since I found Hanks number somewhat inflated.

Agree?

I stopped counting at exactly 100. That was this one:

I have answered a lot of questions.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

- The autopsy of the century and the senior pathologists conflate the lowest part of the back of the head (EOP) with the uppermost part of the same back of the head? 4 inches to the opposite side of the back of the head? Occipital bone with parietal bone?

- The autopsy of the century and the pathologists can’t tell the difference between the lowest part of the right brain where a streak of tiny bullet fragments travels anatomically upwards forward, with the uppermost part of the right brain where a similar streak is seen traveling anatomically downwards forward?

- The autopsy of the century and the pathologists forget to report a big gaping wound in the right back of the head reaching all the way down to the EOP, in their autopsy report? In spite of drawing it on paper with the meassures written on it, still in evidence and confirmed by the pathologists?

- The autopsy of the century and the pathologists draw a big gaping wound in the right back of the head all the way down to the EOP not visible in the x-rays? Did they have a drunk elephant in the autopsy room?

- The autopsy of the century and the chief pathologist burns all of his original notes taken during the autopsy? Unlawful destruction of evidence?

- The autopsy of the century and the pathologists doesn’t notice a big shining artifact in the x-rays? That shines like a lighthouse? That ’happens’ to have the exact dimension of a slice of a Carcano bullet, 6.5 millimeter?

- The autopsy of the century and the pathologists was ordered ”by some general” not to probe any wounds for possible trajectories?

- The autopsy of the century and the pathologists did not contact the Parkland doctors for information of what they did and observe when trying to save the life of JFK?

- The autopsy of the century and almost all of the evidence has disappeard? The brain. Tissues. Bullet fragments. Bone fragments. Photographs. X-rays. Etc?

- The autopsy of the century and the chief pathologist in cahoots with a WC representative (Spekter) is instructing a completely novice forensic illustrator student (Rydberg) to draw the JFK headwounds and assumed bullet trajectory without access to the x-rays or the autopsy photos? From memory alone?


All this and much more, are to be expected, you say?

All of the above are examples of loaded questions or of begging the question. It's also an example of a Gish Gallop - where you throw out a list of claims that you know can't readily be addressed because each one will take a couple of paragraphs to explain and you know no one will bother.

You should present the evidence for each and every one and we can discuss.

Previously you were wanting to go very slowly on one point. Now you want to rush through a dozen all at once. Curious, isn't it?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Well, he's wrong, and you're wrong. There's a legal difference between 'should' and 'shall', and your cited expert, that you think found conclusive evidence from those cited federal regulations, clearly doesn't know that. As I stated previously, he's a run of the mill CT looking for a reason - any reason - to absolve Oswald of the crime. Like most CTs, he should have a tattoo on his arm (if he doesn't already) that reads: "Anybody But Oswald".

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

You may not claim he's an expert, but you're citing his opinion as if he's one. He doesn't know the difference between 'should' and 'shall' in legal terms. Some 'expert'. Just another CT offering up his own worthless opinion.

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.

'Should' and 'shall' have different meanings in legal terms. The stuff that isn't on the money order is noted as 'should', not 'shall', meaning it's suggested but not mandatory.

It’s ugly.

The only ugliness is in the vultures lining up at the gate to all take a whack at JFK's memory, trying their best to absolve his killer by raising whatever bogus issue they can find. These guys like to paint themselves as heroic warriors fighting against the oppression of the state (you use similar language to describe those here questioning you) but they are a bunch of misguided fools.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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

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

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

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

With 'fanatical anti-conspirascist [sic]' being defined as 'anyone who understands how the real world works'.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

"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

So, you are saying that your quote is canceling the need of this?

The Operating Circular 4928 of 1960:

"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."

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/historical/ny circulars/1960_04928.pdf
​

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

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.

But this ”recommendation” is a general one, without exception.

Why is it there in the federal regulations, if it has no regulatory function?

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

Why is it published as as a part of federal regulations?

1 : the act of regulating : the state of being regulated

2 a : an authoritative rule dealing with details or procedure safety regulations

b : a rule or order issued by an executive authority or regulatory agency of a government and having the force of law​

... if it is just a recommendation?

And, why this recommendation? What is its purpose?

The user?

Payee/Payer.

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.

I’m not sure your interpretation of that text is correct. See above.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Why is it published as as a part of federal regulations?

Yes, why is that? You are the one making the claim and obviously haven't supported it yet. Keep trying.

Why did Oswald go on to murder Officer Tippit?

 

[manifesto]

I don't recall claiming infallibility on legal language. I don't know what you require in the way of "evidence" of my expertise. I don't think this list wants to get bogged down with everyone flaunting his or her formal credentials.

Look, I've said my piece about "should." If my arguments don't persuade you, then that's just the way it will have to be.

It was not you who flaunted your alleged expertise, it was other participants in the thread.

That said, if ”should” is only a ”recommendation”:

1. Why publish it in the federal regulations? If it has no regulatory function?

2. Why do the regulations ”recommend” having the bank endorsement stamps ”prominent on both sides” on all PMO’s if it has no needed purpose?

Aesthetics?

 

[RoboTimbo]

<snip running away>

Why indeed? You have the burden of proof. Your claim.

 

[carlitos]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.

The fallacy is an argument from ignorance and an informal fallacy.

 

[Axxman300]

So everyone's clear, Manifesto is arguing that the CIA didn't call the Post Office, or check with the relevant bank before faking the microfilm even though the CIA has a department dedicated to forgeries of various documents.

Then there's the bigger question of why not just buy the rifle with a real money order?

 

[smartcooky]

So, you are saying that your quote is canceling the need of this?
The Operating Circular 4928 of 1960:

"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."

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/historical/ny circulars/1960_04928.pdf

No, it cancels nothing. It allows for alternative procedures for differing circumstances such as manual or automatic batch transaction processing.

I have highlighted the important bit; the bit that you STILL fail to understand

But this ”recommendation” is a general one, without exception.

Why is it there in the federal regulations, if it has no regulatory function?

It does have a regulatory function, you simply fail to understand both what that function is, as well as the language in which is it couched. Refer back the the Federal Plain Language Guidelines I posted for you earlier...

For things in which no deviation from procedure is allowed, the words "must" or "shall" are used.

For things which are only recommended but are not mandatory, the word "should" is used.

THIS IS COMMON LANGUAGE PRACTICE IN ALL REGULATIONS, NOT JUST FEDERAL ONES.

The only question here is why do you not understand something so simple that a grade-schooler could understand? Perhaps you are getting confused between regulations and Laws. Generally speaking;

Regulations are written instructions you should comply with

Laws are written instructions you must comply with.

Why is it published as as a part of federal regulations?
1 : the act of regulating : the state of being regulated

2 a : an authoritative rule dealing with details or procedure safety regulations

b : a rule or order issued by an executive authority or regulatory agency of a government and having the force of law

... if it is just a recommendation?

Your failure to understand the difference between "should" and "shall" or "must" is a problem for you, not me. LEARN THE DIFFERENCE!!!

And, why this recommendation? What is its purpose?

As I said above, it allows for alternative procedures for differing circumstances such as manual or automatic batch transaction processing.

I’m not sure your interpretation of that text is correct.

Its not "my interpretation", its what the language actually says, and I am 100% certain that I am correct, given that I have also posted a reference guide that shows I am 100% correct.

Also, consider this. Banks were not the only places authorised to cash PMOs. They could be cashed at any USPS Branch, as well as at check-cashing locations such as convenience stores, general stores and credit unions. NONE of these are banks, so...

QUESTION: If the regulation that a bank stamp had to be present was mandatory, how could a USPS Branch, or any of those check-cashing locations comply?

ANSWER; THEY HAD THEIR OWN ENDORSEMENT STAMP, JUST LIKE KLEINS DID!! This alone is enough for any reasonable person to understand that you are simply wrong.

At this point, until you prove to me otherwise, I conclude that you are simply being deliberately obtuse and acting wilfully ignorant so that you can keep this debate going.

Its over, you are wrong. Deal with it.

 

[Whip]

All you have in that case is that someone didn't do what you, in your lay opinion, would have done.

let's not get carried away here..........he wouldn't have done it either.

 

[HSienzant]

So everyone's clear, Manifesto is arguing that the CIA didn't call the Post Office, or check with the relevant bank before faking the microfilm even though the CIA has a department dedicated to forgeries of various documents.

Then there's the bigger question of why not just buy the rifle with a real money order?

And don't forget - an unlimited budget. Unlimited!

I would settle for a millionth of an unlimited budget, because it's likewise unlimited.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

So, you are saying that your quote is canceling the need of this?

The Operating Circular 4928 of 1960:

"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."

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/historical/ny circulars/1960_04928.pdf
​

Asked and answered. The answer won't change no matter how many times you ask. There's a 'should' in there, not a 'shall'.

I’m not sure your interpretation of that text is correct. See above.

Nobody cares what you think or what you're unsure about. Your level of confusion is not the controlling factor here.

Hank

 

[Steve]

Asked and answered. The answer won't change no matter how many times you ask. There's a 'should' in there, not a 'shall'.



Nobody cares what you think or what you're unsure about. Your level of confusion is not the controlling factor here. Hank

But it does keep the thread bob-bob-bobbin along.

 

[Axxman300]

And don't forget - an unlimited budget. Unlimited!

I would settle for a millionth of an unlimited budget, because it's likewise unlimited.

Hank

It's even more pathetic.

Klein's is in CHICAGO...so why not have Jimmy-Knuckles, and Ice-Pick Vinnie from the Chicago Mafia roll in there with cash and buy three or four Carcanos, file off the serial numbers, and drive one down to Dallas?

That way there's no paper trial (and God Bless the mob, there almost never is with those guys), and the cops are left scratching their heads.

They can't trace it to Oswald, if he's CIA's uber-hitman he just hangs out in the lunch room, gives a statement to the cops, and a month later quits his job (or gets fired), and escapes to Mexico.

Hell, if Oswald had been smart he would have rigged a compartment in the floor that was being replaced on the other side of the 6th floor, and stashed the rifle there (obviously he didn't have a lot of time to plan, and was not a deep thinker).