smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
JFK Conspiracy Theories VII: Late November back in '63...
- Thread starter HSienzant
- Start date
- Status
Yes, I have read this, but this was not my question. I ask you why this ’recommendation’ is made. What’s its purpose? What is gained if followed? What could be the downside if NOT followed?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Yes, but the answer is to a question I did not make.
Continue from here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12321979&postcount=62
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Are you like me confronted by a barrage of crap from a whole school of fanatics or are you just being unable to provide evidence of your claim that hand writing experts studied the real documents when concluding that it was Oswald that signed it with his alleged alias?
Before the real document conviently ’disappeard’ from the FBI never to be seen again?
Have you at last found it?
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Are you
still running away from answering questions about all of your blowhard claims? Typical CT , nothing of substance to contribute and nothing to back up their talk.HSienzant
Philosopher
What a silly question.
You're literally asking for information you know no one can provide. And that's what I predicted would happen.
Nobody here on this forum is the author of the quoted passage.
Nobody here is all that familiar with 1950s banking needs and postal service money orders.
We can presume however, that whatever group decided upon the draft of the passage in question, and whatever group ultimately determined to adopt it, they were both familiar with the 1950s banking needs and postal service money orders and the pressing issues of the day and decided that the passage as it existed in 1960 was the best at the time for its time.
And that they spent sufficient time to craft it to spell out what was absolutely mandatory (shall) and what was optional but desirable (should).
As I said above, you're following the CT playbook precisely. As one question is answered, simply quibble and
ask another and another and another.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12320993&postcount=5264nd
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.
You're quibbling with the definition at this point and asking if there are exceptions. 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
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
"should"
Optional, not mandatory, recommended.
Did them one at a time. That was easy. We're done here.
Hank
Last edited:
How did his prints get on it I wonder. And what a coincidence that he was photographed with that same rifle in March of 1963. And what a coincidence that his handwriting is all over the back of that same photo.
Coincidences galore.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Three at last count.
Is that enough for a school? Only three on this board, but this is not the only thing that takes up my time, nor are these the only three fanatics I deal with. Try to remember it takes very little time for you to fling some mud and make a charge you won't support, and for me to clean up your mud and post the actual evidence. If anyone is suffering from overwork here, it's not you.
And there's the logical fallacy of the false dilemma.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma
Description: When only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between two extremes. False dilemmas are usually characterized by “either this or that” language, but can also be characterized by omissions of choices.
You're pretending the only two choices are "I'm like you" or "The evidence doesn't exist". The third choice is I like yanking your chain.
You can find the evidence that the real money order was recovered and examined in James Cadigan's testimony. You should know this. You claimed to be very well read on the subject.
What is your source for that claim that it's missing? Is this just another example of your mud flinging?
Here's a color image of the money order as found. It's not a photocopy of the original. This image is of the original money order:
http://media.gettyimages.com/photos...legedly-was-the-picture-id576878044?s=594x594
Hank
Last edited:
Axxman300
Philosopher
Axxman300
Philosopher
But you claim the authority to interpret it?
1960. But you still claim to know what it all means?
Wow. That is a tautology if there ever was one.
Yes, but why was it ”desirable”? What was the reason for making the ”recommendation”? What was its purpose?
I’m trying to pin down what you are actually claiming. Are you saying that the ”recommendation” was stated in the federal regulations for no reason at all?
I have no issue with your ”interpretation” of the ’should’ in the regulation. I wonder why the ”recommendation” was made?
What was its purpose? Consequenses if followed? Consequenses if not followed?
Do you know?
No, it is you who have an old straw man machine in the garage in a desperate need of getting rid of.
Why the ”recommendation”? For what purpose?
Do you know? Have a guess?
Last edited:
Where in the photo does it say ”rifle owned by Oswald a.k.a. Hidell”?
On the barrel?
Axxman300
Philosopher
Planted or manipulating him to hold it, leaving the prints.
Oswald himself said that it was a fabrication. That his head had been superimposed on another guys body and that he could prove it.
Do you see his clothes? He had no such clothes in his belongings. He was dirt poor.
Hand writings are easy to fake.
Yes, this case are packed with a ridiculous amount of ridiculous coincidents. It’s like a big jigsaw puzzle with millions of little pieces of which none fits with none.
That is NOT how reality works. This is how a sloppy cover-up of an even sloppier frame-up works.
Nothing fits.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Was this before or after he signed it? Was this before of after he said he'd never been to Mexico City?
Good, Hank. We are making progress. The regulation says that bank endorsement stamps ”should” be promintly present on both sides, stamps not present on the alleged Hidell PMO.
At last.
That rises the question of why it was ”recommended”. Do you know this? What was the purpose of the stamps? What was the benefits from following the ”recommendation”? What was the possible consequenses of NOT following the ”recommendation”?
Do you know?
We are done with number one, yes. At last.
Now it’s number two. Why the ”recommendation”.
Do you know?
Last edited:
I can't think of a time it means 'must' ever really. 'Should' is always suggestive.
- Status