Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

[James DiEugenio]

Lance Payette's best friend has turned out to be David Von Pein.

As they say Birds of a Feather.

As for, let us call it, Payette's complaint, about where has everyone else gone; as I noted many moons ago, for reasons of time and psychology, I refuse to get into a constant back and forth with DVP anymore. It is simply stupid to argue with a zealot.

Sandy is doing us all a very good service by arguing with them both. Bless him on this holiday season.

As for me, I go back to my original argument: if everything about a transaction is dubious, from A to Z, it is illogical to assume that one last step in the process is genuine. And that is what DVP and Payette want you to believe. Which is why they avoid almost everything else. In fact they do not even want to bring it up. But from Oswald's time cards covering everything that morning, to the fact that no one admits giving him the rifle, and that the postal regs would not allow him to get the rifle--and every step in between--this evidentiary trail is bogus.

Including THE FACT THAT ITS THE WRONG RIFLE!! Yet DVP and his new buddy want us to buy iinto the proposition that OK, so what with all that? Let us forget all of that: we have the UFC!

To me this is like saying well look, there is the exhibit CE 399 and it has the identifying rifle marks on it. Therefore, Oswald killed Kennedy, let us go home.

Thank God we did not buy that piece of snake oil.

But yet, this is exactly what Lance said many pages ago on this thread about the PMO. It has that number on it, let us go on.

Everything else smells, but this makes it all a rose garden. Some indefatigable lawyer.

Thanks Sandy. Have a good Xmas.

Edited December 24, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

And let me add this other point which Lance and his buddy DVP are busy distorting--this work was not all based on Armstrong.

That is an adulteration of the record. There are at least four other sources for this rifle debate: the late Ray Gallagher, Jerry McLeer, David Josephs and Gil Jesus.

Ray is the first guy who intimated something was wrong with the transaction: How could the money order do all of that in 24 hours. That is go from Dallas to Chicago to the bank and be deposited all in a day.

McLeer has some interesting exhibits on his site showing there was more than one rifle in evidence.

Gil has done some really fantastic work on tracing the delivery all the way from Italy to Chicago. That work is really kind of revolutionary showing that the rifle in evidence could not have been the one ordered.

And David just did a two part article at CTKA, which also questions the provenance of the rifle in the BYP, among several other points.

So to say that this is all Armstrong about the rifle, that is simply not the case. Its a form of intellectual dishonesty. And I think its done for personal reasons and also to limit the scope of the debate.

Which is what they always try and do.

Edited December 24, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

From Oswald's time cards covering everything that morning...

I think it's quite possible that Oswald went to the post office and purchased his money order BEFORE he went to work on March 12th. But other possibilities certainly exist as well, as Gary Mack speculated about in this e-mail to me in 2011:

"True, there's no evidence showing Oswald to have been anywhere but J-C-S that day, but do his time sheets list his working hours AND breaks - including lunch - NO. Of course not, they just show that he was paid to be at J-C-S for a full day.....and he was. As for Oswald's J-C-S times sheet, researcher Mary Ferrell, whom I had great respect for, wrote, "OSWALD'S time sheet for March 12 is evidence that he probably lied sometimes about his hours. On the day he ordered the rifle, he signed in from 8:15 a.m. to 5:15 p.m., (Exhibit no. 1855, Vol. 23, p. 605)." She then wrote that the post office opened at 8am, after noting Harry Holmes' testimony that the envelope was mailed in the early morning. The simple fact that Marina and Marguerite both admitted back then and for years later - I've heard the story directly from both women - that he posed for pictures with the guns he ordered trumps everything else." -- Gary Mack; March 25, 2011

...to the fact that no one admits giving him the rifle...

You expect way too much from the post office clerks eight months after one of them handed a package to a person who was--at the time in March of '63--just one of hundreds of ordinary people who picked up packages at that post office that same day.

...and that the postal regs would not allow him to get the rifle...

Well, Jim, I guess you should really be scolding the bumbling patsy framers--yet again--for still another stupid error on their part. The alleged plotters were trying desperately (from the look of things that you claim are "bogus") to make it look as though Lee Oswald ordered and took possession of Rifle C2766 in March of 1963, and yet they rigged the evidence in such a way so that it would have been impossible (legally) for the patsy to have obtained the "Hidell"-ordered Mannlicher-Carcano through the postal system?

Oh, those brilliant conspirators!

...and every step in between--this evidentiary trail is bogus. Including THE FACT THAT IT'S THE WRONG RIFLE!!

And no matter how many times I point Jimbo to the reasonable explanation which reconciles this "rifle length" discrepancy (linked again below), DiEugenio will still insist the discrepancy has never once been explained in a logical manner. Go figure.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html

Jim, don't you think maybe it's time for conspiracy theorists like yourself to finally shed at least a couple of the conspiracy myths that were debunked and/or fully explained in non-conspiratorial ways years ago? Such as your silly "Wrong Rifle" canard.

And the "Postal Zone 12" theory is very likely another myth that should be dumped at sea as well. Here's why....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html

Edited December 25, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David G. Healy]

ditto the last two posts, Jim D...

and Happy holidays to you Jim, and all the other posters to these threads regarding JFK's assassination. It's been quite an education (pardon the pun).

Edited December 25, 2015 by David G. Healy

[Hank Sienzant]

Lance Payette's best friend has turned out to be David Von Pein.

As they say Birds of a Feather.

As for, let us call it, Payette's complaint, about where has everyone else gone; as I noted many moons ago, for reasons of time and psychology, I refuse to get into a constant back and forth with DVP anymore. It is simply stupid to argue with a zealot.

Sandy is doing us all a very good service by arguing with them both. Bless him on this holiday season.

As for me, I go back to my original argument: if everything about a transaction is dubious, from A to Z, it is illogical to assume that one last step in the process is genuine. And that is what DVP and Payette want you to believe. Which is why they avoid almost everything else. In fact they do not even want to bring it up. But from Oswald's time cards covering everything that morning, to the fact that no one admits giving him the rifle, and that the postal regs would not allow him to get the rifle--and every step in between--this evidentiary trail is bogus.

Including THE FACT THAT ITS THE WRONG RIFLE!! Yet DVP and his new buddy want us to buy iinto the proposition that OK, so what with all that? Let us forget all of that: we have the UFC!

To me this is like saying well look, there is the exhibit CE 399 and it has the identifying rifle marks on it. Therefore, Oswald killed Kennedy, let us go home.

Thank God we did not buy that piece of snake oil.

But yet, this is exactly what Lance said many pages ago on this thread about the PMO. It has that number on it, let us go on.

Everything else smells, but this makes it all a rose garden. Some indefatigable lawyer.

Thanks Sandy. Have a good Xmas.

You're trying to salvage the money order argument by changing the subject to other things you question.

Sorry, that's illegitimate argument... it's a logical fallacy known as a red herring to bring up the rifle at this time when the subject is, in fact, the money order.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant]

And let me add this other point which Lance and his buddy DVP are busy distorting--this work was not all based on Armstrong.

That is an adulteration of the record. There are at least four other sources for this rifle debate: the late Ray Gallagher, Jerry McLeer, David Josephs and Gil Jesus.

Ray is the first guy who intimated something was wrong with the transaction: How could the money order do all of that in 24 hours. That is go from Dallas to Chicago to the bank and be deposited all in a day.

McLeer has some interesting exhibits on his site showing there was more than one rifle in evidence.

Gil has done some really fantastic work on tracing the delivery all the way from Italy to Chicago. That work is really kind of revolutionary showing that the rifle in evidence could not have been the one ordered.

And David just did a two part article at CTKA, which also questions the provenance of the rifle in the BYP, among several other points.

So to say that this is all Armstrong about the rifle, that is simply not the case. Its a form of intellectual dishonesty. And I think its done for personal reasons and also to limit the scope of the debate.

Which is what they always try and do.

Ray is the first guy who intimated something was wrong with the transaction: How could the money order do all of that in 24 hours. That is go from Dallas to Chicago to the bank and be deposited all in a day.

​Sorry, you need to provide evidence, not just intimation, that there's anything wrong with the transaction.

McLeer has some interesting exhibits on his site showing there was more than one rifle in evidence.

Sorry, changing the subject from the money order to the rifle won't work. We understand that's a logical fallacy, and we understand why you're trying this.

Gil has done some really fantastic work on tracing the delivery all the way from Italy to Chicago. That work is really kind of revolutionary showing that the rifle in evidence could not have been the one ordered.

Sorry, changing the subject from the money order to the rifle won't work. We understand that's a logical fallacy, and we understand why you're trying this.

And David just did a two part article at CTKA, which also questions the provenance of the rifle in the BYP, among several other points.

You understand the subject matter under debate is the money order? Why are you trying to derail the argument to the rifle at this time? For one reason only, you understand the money order is a lost cause. So now you're trying to do what all conspiracy theorists do, deflect the argument to other points. If you want to discuss the rifle, start a new thread, or contribute to one of the several dozens or hundreds on the rifle you can find on this forum.

So to say that this is all Armstrong about the rifle, that is simply not the case.

We know. It's about the money order. You're the only one making it about the rifle.

Its a form of intellectual dishonesty.

We agree! We just disagree on whose intellectual dishonesty.

And I think its done for personal reasons and also to limit the scope of the debate.

Arguing every point at once isn't very feasible. So yeah, the debate has to be limited if it's going to go anywhere. Right now, it's limited to the question of the money order, and whether there's anything wrong with it. That has not be demonstrated, despite Sandy's best efforts. You want to change the subject from the money order to the rifle because you can see Sandy isn't getting where he'd like to go.

We understand, Jim.

​Hank

Edited December 25, 2015 by Hank Sienzant

[Thomas Graves]

And let me add this other point which Lance and his buddy DVP are busy distorting--this work was not all based on Armstrong.

That is an adulteration of the record. There are at least four other sources for this rifle debate: the late Ray Gallagher, Jerry McLeer, David Josephs and Gil Jesus.

Ray is the first guy who intimated something was wrong with the transaction: How could the money order do all of that in 24 hours. That is go from Dallas to Chicago to the bank and be deposited all in a day.

McLeer has some interesting exhibits on his site showing there was more than one rifle in evidence.

Gil has done some really fantastic work on tracing the delivery all the way from Italy to Chicago. That work is really kind of revolutionary showing that the rifle in evidence could not have been the one ordered.

And David just did a two part article at CTKA, which also questions the provenance of the rifle in the BYP, among several other points.

So to say that this is all Armstrong about the rifle, that is simply not the case. Its a form of intellectual dishonesty. And I think its done for personal reasons and also to limit the scope of the debate.

Which is what they always try and do.

Ray is the first guy who intimated something was wrong with the transaction: How could the money order do all of that in 24 hours. That is go from Dallas to Chicago to the bank and be deposited all in a day.

​Sorry, you need to provide evidence, not just intimidation, that there's anything wrong with the transaction.

McLeer has some interesting exhibits on his site showing there was more than one rifle in evidence.

Sorry, changing the subject from the money order to the rifle won't work. We understand that's a logical fallacy, and we understand why you're trying this.

Gil has done some really fantastic work on tracing the delivery all the way from Italy to Chicago. That work is really kind of revolutionary showing that the rifle in evidence could not have been the one ordered.

Sorry, changing the subject from the money order to the rifle won't work. We understand that's a logical fallacy, and we understand why you're trying this.

And David just did a two part article at CTKA, which also questions the provenance of the rifle in the BYP, among several other points.

You understand the subject matter under debate is the money order? Why are you trying to derail the argument to the rifle at this time? For one reason only, you understand the money order is a lost cause. So now you're trying to do what all conspiracy theorists do, deflect the argument to other points. If you want to discuss the rifle, start a new thread, or contribute to one of the several dozens or hundreds on the rifle you can find on this forum.

So to say that this is all Armstrong about the rifle, that is simply not the case.

We know. It's about the money order. You're the only one making it about the rifle.

Its a form of intellectual dishonesty.

We agree! We just disagree on whose intellectual dishonesty.

And I think its done for personal reasons and also to limit the scope of the debate.

Arguing every point at once isn't very feasible. So yeah, the debate has to be limited if it's going to go anywhere. Right now, it's limited to the question of the money order, and whether there's anything wrong with it. That has not be demonstrated, despite Sandy's best efforts. You want to change the subject from the money order to the rifle because you can see Sandy isn't getting where he'd like to go.

We understand, Jim.

​Hank

Hank,

Excellent post! And that's very high praise, indeed, coming from a Conspiracy Theory-In-Progress "Tinkerer" * such as myself.

* Not to be confused with the run-of-the-mill Conspiracy Theorist , a person who already has his or her cherished "theory" and continually tries to find "evidence" which at least appears to support it, ignoring in the process any and all evidence which actually or, ironically, apparently contradicts it.

--Tommy, the Serious

Edited December 25, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[James DiEugenio]

HS :You're trying to salvage the money order argument by changing the subject to other things you question.

That is pure baloney from both an intellectual and a forensic angle.

Again, refer to the infamous exhibit CE 399. Which DVP and Hank--the McAdams' poster--ran away from. To me that is a very good comparison. The WC used the rifling marks on CE 399 to cinch the case that this was the bullet that hit Kennedy and Connally. Well, I don't think they believed it. But to someone who just read the report without doing any other research, then yes it made sense.

Until you analyzed the whole one day journey of CE 399.

http://www.ctka.net/2010/journeyCE399.html

You cannot separate out one single part of the transaction from the rest of the multi steps in that same transaction. Just like you cannot ignore the work of other authors and make Armstrong the sole focus of the debate. Like I said, this is a dodge. Coming from people who do not know anything about the work of the other authors. For example:

1. If its the wrong rifle, then how can the transaction be genuine?

2. If Oswald never picked up the rifle, then how can the transaction be genuine?

3. If the postal regs actually prohibited Oswald from picking up the rifle, how can the transaction be genuine?

4. If there is written certification Oswald was at work all day, then how can the transaction be genuine?

5. If the rifle Marina saw did not have a scope on it, then how can the transaction be genuine?

And I could go on and on in this regard. And we can argue about this most current debate also. Everything that Sandy has presented indicates that the bank should have stamped that PMO. And this includes the two bank executives that John and I talked to.

But that is how rabid and unbalanced the other side gets in this particular debate. In any other case, rational people understand that when you pile up anomaly onto anomaly until you have like seven or eight of them in just one transaction, it is simply illogical to say well look at this--the rifling marks--it makes all the other stuff go away. Oswald killed Kennedy.

No it does not make it all go away. And for a lawyer to say the contra when he knows in a court of law all of this would have been in play and witness after witness would have been called to say so, I mean that is just really incomprehensible to me.

The deduction should be the opposite. Unless of course you post at McAdams' site, like Hank. Then you leave the logic outside the door. Its a requirement to post there.

PS: As for Tommy, the droll, as I said before, if you have nothing of substance to offer, then just don't say anything.

Edited December 25, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

The deduction should be the opposite. Unless of course you post at McAdams' site, like Hank. Then you leave the logic outside the door. [it's] a requirement to post there.

And it's also a requirement to check your logic at the door if you were a conspirator trying to frame Oswald for JFK's murder in 1963.

They shot up Dealey Plaza within a "Let's Frame Oswald As The Sole Assassin" framework by firing bullets at Kennedy from a VARIETY of different locations (per CT mongers).

They wanted to make people think that Oswald carried a rifle into the TSBD by carrying it in a MAKE-BELIEVE bag that was way too small to hold that rifle (per CTers).

And, per CTers, "they" made up an "encounter" with LHO in the TSBD, but decided to have the meeting take place FOUR FLOORS away from the Death Floor---instead of just MAKING UP a good story about Baker & Truly actually seeing Oswald with a gun ON THE SIXTH FLOOR (where the shooting actually occurred).

Where does the LOGIC lie in ANY of the above things that many Internet CTers think really did happen?

Answer --- On the front stoop. Because all of those things are just plain ILLOGICAL to begin with.

Edited December 25, 2015 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Have a good Holiday DVP.

And a good New Year.

I am trying to keep my resolution.

[David Von Pein]

Have a good Holiday DVP.

And a good New Year.

I am trying to keep my resolution.

Same to you, Jim. Happy Holidays.

And here's my special holiday gift to you, Jim. It's an interview with Melvin Belli that I discovered just yesterday and added to my YouTube collection. It deals (in part) with one of your favorite people---Jim Garrison. ....

P.S. --- And here's another 1968 interview I had never heard before.

It's a radio interview with Bill Turner (also re: Garrison)....

http://bayarearadio.org/audio/knew/1968/KNEW_Joe-Dolan_Jan-1968.mp3

Edited December 25, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David G. Healy]

And let me add this other point which Lance and his buddy DVP are busy distorting--this work was not all based on Armstrong.

That is an adulteration of the record. There are at least four other sources for this rifle debate: the late Ray Gallagher, Jerry McLeer, David Josephs and Gil Jesus.

Ray is the first guy who intimated something was wrong with the transaction: How could the money order do all of that in 24 hours. That is go from Dallas to Chicago to the bank and be deposited all in a day.

McLeer has some interesting exhibits on his site showing there was more than one rifle in evidence.

Gil has done some really fantastic work on tracing the delivery all the way from Italy to Chicago. That work is really kind of revolutionary showing that the rifle in evidence could not have been the one ordered.

And David just did a two part article at CTKA, which also questions the provenance of the rifle in the BYP, among several other points.

So to say that this is all Armstrong about the rifle, that is simply not the case. Its a form of intellectual dishonesty. And I think its done for personal reasons and also to limit the scope of the debate.

Which is what they always try and do.

Ray is the first guy who intimated something was wrong with the transaction: How could the money order do all of that in 24 hours. That is go from Dallas to Chicago to the bank and be deposited all in a day.

​Sorry, you need to provide evidence, not just intimation, that there's anything wrong with the transaction.

McLeer has some interesting exhibits on his site showing there was more than one rifle in evidence.

Sorry, changing the subject from the money order to the rifle won't work. We understand that's a logical fallacy, and we understand why you're trying this.

Gil has done some really fantastic work on tracing the delivery all the way from Italy to Chicago. That work is really kind of revolutionary showing that the rifle in evidence could not have been the one ordered.

Sorry, changing the subject from the money order to the rifle won't work. We understand that's a logical fallacy, and we understand why you're trying this.

And David just did a two part article at CTKA, which also questions the provenance of the rifle in the BYP, among several other points.

You understand the subject matter under debate is the money order? Why are you trying to derail the argument to the rifle at this time? For one reason only, you understand the money order is a lost cause. So now you're trying to do what all conspiracy theorists do, deflect the argument to other points. If you want to discuss the rifle, start a new thread, or contribute to one of the several dozens or hundreds on the rifle you can find on this forum.

So to say that this is all Armstrong about the rifle, that is simply not the case.

We know. It's about the money order. You're the only one making it about the rifle.

Its a form of intellectual dishonesty.

We agree! We just disagree on whose intellectual dishonesty.

And I think its done for personal reasons and also to limit the scope of the debate.

Arguing every point at once isn't very feasible. So yeah, the debate has to be limited if it's going to go anywhere. Right now, it's limited to the question of the money order, and whether there's anything wrong with it. That has not be demonstrated, despite Sandy's best efforts. You want to change the subject from the money order to the rifle because you can see Sandy isn't getting where he'd like to go.

We understand, Jim.

​Hank

Ben Holmes has been confronting you with case evidence every single day at the JFK AMAZON threads and you've been running as is DVP and his dwindling army of debunkers. For the past 4 months, that I know of!

What's with that Mr. *changing the subject* Hanky? Here you are telling others they're changing the subject, huh? So get real, Dude.

Edited December 25, 2015 by David G. Healy

[David G. Healy]

Gary Puffer (as well as Ben Holmes) at AMAZON has (have) been educating Mr. Hanky (the old Hankster) on the fine art of logical fallacy (ies) these days. When DVP get int rouble old Mel Ayton runs to his side...

[Hank Sienzant]

HS :You're trying to salvage the money order argument by changing the subject to other things you question.

That is pure baloney from both an intellectual and a forensic angle.

Again, refer to the infamous exhibit CE 399. Which DVP and Hank--the McAdams' poster--ran away from. To me that is a very good comparison. The WC used the rifling marks on CE 399 to cinch the case that this was the bullet that hit Kennedy and Connally. Well, I don't think they believed it. But to someone who just read the report without doing any other research, then yes it made sense.

Until you analyzed the whole one day journey of CE 399.

http://www.ctka.net/2010/journeyCE399.html

You cannot separate out one single part of the transaction from the rest of the multi steps in that same transaction. Just like you cannot ignore the work of other authors and make Armstrong the sole focus of the debate. Like I said, this is a dodge. Coming from people who do not know anything about the work of the other authors. For example:

1. If its the wrong rifle, then how can the transaction be genuine?

2. If Oswald never picked up the rifle, then how can the transaction be genuine?

3. If the postal regs actually prohibited Oswald from picking up the rifle, how can the transaction be genuine?

4. If there is written certification Oswald was at work all day, then how can the transaction be genuine?

5. If the rifle Marina saw did not have a scope on it, then how can the transaction be genuine?

And I could go on and on in this regard. And we can argue about this most current debate also. Everything that Sandy has presented indicates that the bank should have stamped that PMO. And this includes the two bank executives that John and I talked to.

But that is how rabid and unbalanced the other side gets in this particular debate. In any other case, rational people understand that when you pile up anomaly onto anomaly until you have like seven or eight of them in just one transaction, it is simply illogical to say well look at this--the rifling marks--it makes all the other stuff go away. Oswald killed Kennedy.

No it does not make it all go away. And for a lawyer to say the contra when he knows in a court of law all of this would have been in play and witness after witness would have been called to say so, I mean that is just really incomprehensible to me.

The deduction should be the opposite. Unless of course you post at McAdams' site, like Hank. Then you leave the logic outside the door. Its a requirement to post there.

PS: As for Tommy, the droll, as I said before, if you have nothing of substance to offer, then just don't say anything.

Still changing the subject from the money order and now to the rifle bullet. That's a LOGICAL FALLACY known as a red herring.

Already pointed it out. I don't know why you persist. Here, let's go into a bit more detail.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1.Topic A is under discussion.

2.Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).

3.Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

​And of course, your argument that "Unless of course you post at McAdams' site, like Hank. Then you leave the logic outside the door" is simply the LOGICAL FALLACY of ad hominem. That's where you attack the messenger, instead of the message.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1.Person A makes claim X.

2.Person B makes an attack on person A.

3.Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

My message was on the topic of the money order and whether it appears valid from the contents of the money order itself. I see you didn't bother to respond on that subject whatsoever. Instead, you bring up some supposed other 'anomalies' in an attempt to change the subject.

Happy Holidays to you and yours,

Hank

PS: I haven't posted at McAdams site for about a year. Besides, that's just another LOGICAL FALLACY known as "poisoning the well". You point that out (that I've posted at McAdams site) as if it's a negative, and that's the very definition of poisoning the well, Jim. I've posted at a lot of sites, Jim - going back to CompuServe, Prodigy, and the old AOL bulletin boards.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

Description of Poisoning the Well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1.Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.

2.Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make.

​Good luck getting anyone to fall for this kind of argument, Jim.

Edited December 25, 2015 by Hank Sienzant

[David G. Healy]

HS :You're trying to salvage the money order argument by changing the subject to other things you question.

That is pure baloney from both an intellectual and a forensic angle.

Again, refer to the infamous exhibit CE 399. Which DVP and Hank--the McAdams' poster--ran away from. To me that is a very good comparison. The WC used the rifling marks on CE 399 to cinch the case that this was the bullet that hit Kennedy and Connally. Well, I don't think they believed it. But to someone who just read the report without doing any other research, then yes it made sense.

Until you analyzed the whole one day journey of CE 399.

http://www.ctka.net/2010/journeyCE399.html

You cannot separate out one single part of the transaction from the rest of the multi steps in that same transaction. Just like you cannot ignore the work of other authors and make Armstrong the sole focus of the debate. Like I said, this is a dodge. Coming from people who do not know anything about the work of the other authors. For example:

1. If its the wrong rifle, then how can the transaction be genuine?

2. If Oswald never picked up the rifle, then how can the transaction be genuine?

3. If the postal regs actually prohibited Oswald from picking up the rifle, how can the transaction be genuine?

4. If there is written certification Oswald was at work all day, then how can the transaction be genuine?

5. If the rifle Marina saw did not have a scope on it, then how can the transaction be genuine?

And I could go on and on in this regard. And we can argue about this most current debate also. Everything that Sandy has presented indicates that the bank should have stamped that PMO. And this includes the two bank executives that John and I talked to.

But that is how rabid and unbalanced the other side gets in this particular debate. In any other case, rational people understand that when you pile up anomaly onto anomaly until you have like seven or eight of them in just one transaction, it is simply illogical to say well look at this--the rifling marks--it makes all the other stuff go away. Oswald killed Kennedy.

No it does not make it all go away. And for a lawyer to say the contra when he knows in a court of law all of this would have been in play and witness after witness would have been called to say so, I mean that is just really incomprehensible to me.

The deduction should be the opposite. Unless of course you post at McAdams' site, like Hank. Then you leave the logic outside the door. Its a requirement to post there.

PS: As for Tommy, the droll, as I said before, if you have nothing of substance to offer, then just don't say anything.

Still changing the subject from the money order to the rifle. That's a LOGICAL FALLACY known as a red herring. Already pointed it out. I don't know why you persist.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1.Topic A is under discussion.

2.Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).

3.Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

​And of course, your argument that "Unless of course you post at McAdams' site, like Hank. Then you leave the logic outside the door" is simply the LOGICAL FALLACY of ad hominem. That's where you attack the messenger, instead of the message.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1.Person A makes claim X.

2.Person B makes an attack on person A.

3.Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

My message was on the topic of the money order and whether it appears valid from the contents of the money order itself. I see you didn't bother to respond on that subject whatsoever. Instead, you bring up some supposed other 'anomalies' in an attempt to change the subject.

Hank

PS: I haven't posted at McAdams site for about a year. Besides, that's just another LOGICAL FALLACY known as "poisoning the well". You point that out (that I've posted at McAdams site) as if it's a negative, and that's the very definition of poisoning the well, Jim. I've posted at a lot of sites, Jim - going back to CompuServe, Prodigy, and the old AOL bulletin boards.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

Description of Poisoning the Well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1.Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.

2.Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make.

​Good luck getting anyone to fall for this kind of argument, Jim.

you're a broken record Henry. No one is interested in your debate tactics. However, AMAZON debate defeat does look well on you. Looking for greener pastures these days? And.... you've been posting to .john looney bin for nearly 20 years, who are you trying to kid?

Edited December 25, 2015 by David G. Healy