Jump to content
The Education Forum

Hank Sienzant

Members
  • Content Count

    60
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Hank Sienzant

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    USA
  • Interests
    JFK Assassination, Reading in general

Recent Profile Visitors

1,492 profile views
  1. I didn't miss it. It's only your opinion about that. Your opinion, and four bucks, will get you a coffee at Starbucks. Of course, you can get the coffee for four bucks without the opinion, which pretty much establishes the value of your opinion. Sandy hasn't shown what he set out to show -- note the title of the thread. Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!​ He quoted the wrong section of the postal code to start (quoting a section about disbursement money orders), and it was downhill from there. Oh really, Hank? Where have you been? Postal money orders do indeed require
  2. I didn't miss it. It's only your opinion about that. Your opinion, and four bucks, will get you a coffee at Starbucks. Of course, you can get the coffee for four bucks without the opinion, which pretty much establishes the value of your opinion. Sandy hasn't shown what he set out to show -- note the title of the thread. Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!​ He quoted the wrong section of the postal code to start (quoting a section about disbursement money orders), and it was downhill from there. Oh really, Hank? Where have you been? Postal money orders do indeed require
  3. This transaction goes to the heart of the assassination and involves a paper trail that is flawed. How is the paper trail flawed? You're not going to argue it was postmarked in the wrong zone -- based on the assumption that the 12 specified a zone 12 in Dallas -- and that Oswald didn't have time to buy the money order -- based on the assumption that people never leave work after punching in and stealing some company time to do personal shopping or anything -- right? Your entire argument about the paper trail is flawed because it's based on assumptions and ignores the real world counter-exam
  4. I didn't miss it. It's only your opinion about that. Your opinion, and four bucks, will get you a coffee at Starbucks. Of course, you can get the coffee for four bucks without the opinion, which pretty much establishes the value of your opinion. Sandy hasn't shown what he set out to show -- note the title of the thread. Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!​ He quoted the wrong section of the postal code to start (quoting a section about disbursement money orders), and it was downhill from there. Oh really, Hank? Where have you been? Postal money orders do indeed require
  5. I didn't miss it. It's only your opinion about that. Your opinion, and four bucks, will get you a coffee at Starbucks. Of course, you can get the coffee for four bucks without the opinion, which pretty much establishes the value of your opinion. Sandy hasn't shown what he set out to show -- note the title of the thread. Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!​ He quoted the wrong section of the postal code to start (quoting a section about disbursement money orders), and it was downhill from there. At least you're back on topic.
  6. You keep talking about the rifle in a thread devoted to the money order. Seems like you're desperate to change the subject. Note: I did not mention Armstrong either. Hank
  7. I'll remind you that there's plenty of evidence your 'Therefore' has to overcome. Start a thread on the rifle, and post the link here. I'll be happy to discuss. And I'll remind you that we're talking specifically about any supposed issues with the money order in this thread. Any supposed issues with the rifle deserves its own thread, and you're simply attempting to change the subject from the money order to the rifle. We can all see that. And I'll point out that your 'Maybe" is simply speculation. And there's plenty of evidence to support that he did send the payment. Hank
  8. You keep talking about the rifle when the subject of this thread is the money order. Why is that, Jim?
  9. All these steps are part of one transaction. ​Nobody is disputing that. In fact, it's good of you to finally admit it. You've been arguing all along these are not all part of one transaction, haven't you? So to say for example, that the processing of my charge card is not related to signing the receipt--I mean who the heck buys that baloney? You are the one passing out red herrings. ​That's the LOGICAL FALLACY of a straw man argument. I didn't say they were unrelated... I said it was a change of subject to start talking about the bullet or the rifle when the subject of this discussion is t
  10. 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 u
  11. 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 rea
  12. 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
  13. Hank, Endorsements have more than one purpose. One is the guaranty that you point out is considered to be in place regardless of whether or not an express guaranty is included in the endorsement. Another purpose is to indicate the ABA and address of the sending bank. It is apparently for non-guaranty purposes that the bank endorsement is required. BTW, keep in mind that whatever you interpret from that paragraph in the FRB operating circular, it will be applicable not only to postal money orders but to checks as well. Don't you remember way back when, when we were all young, that virtually e
  14. The paragraph I am looking at says all that's necessary is an endorsement TO the bank. And we have that in the Kleins stamp. It goes on to say that "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." In other words, the FRB will accept money orders without any additional endorsements, and it's understood that the very act of submitting the money order for payment is
  15. Armstrong obviously didn't research this very well, or else he would have discovered the answer in the Warren Commission testimony, as cited previously here by DVP, wouldn't he? There's the rub. I see a lot of allusions to Armstrong's research, but if he couldn't even discover why there was bleed through, then that calls into question how great a researcher he really is. Doesn't it? Hank The paragraph about ink bleeding on the money order isn't in Armstrong's book. It does appear on his website, clearly as an afterthought. And if you read the paragraph you will see that he doesn't claim t
×
×
  • Create New...