Hank Sienzant
-
Posts
127 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Hank Sienzant
-
-
2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Hank:
Please. In this day and age, to say the WR is not speculative? What are you going to say: its factual?
How?
What is your proof that LHO was in the window at the proper time?
What is your proof that anyone could do what the WC said Oswald did?
What is your proof that CE 399 was on Connally's stretcher?
How could you possibly get CE 399 into evidence in court?
How could a bullet from behind leave a large avulsive would in the back of Kennedy's skull?
Where did the 6.5 mm fragment come from in 1968?
How does a bullet go from a right left trajectory, to a left right trajectory to exit Kennedy's skull? And exit above and to the right of his right ear, and land in the front seat. Cut in half, with the base and tip landing there. But the middle part left in the rear of the skull?
How did Oswald send a coupon and payment to Klein's in Chicago for the rifle, which arrived, was sorted, and then deposited in about one day--a distance of a thousand miles. When Oliver Stone did that experiment, it took six days. And recall, back then--no zip codes, no computers, no sensors.
Note I used the word proof at the start. Oswald had no lawyer to defend him or raise these questions. Therefore, there was no standard that the WC had to meet. This is why they never had to answer these questions.
A Gish Gallop is another form of logical fallacy.
Asking a series of begged questions isn't the proper way to go about this.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/gish-gallop.html
== QUOTE ==
Description: Overwhelming an interlocutor with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments. This is especially disingenuous when the interlocutor is not allowed to interrupt and address the arguments, as in formal debate or in writing. To the spectator unfamiliar with this strategy, the interlocutor’s inability to accurately respond to all the claims in the given time is fallaciously seen as a “win” for the Gish Galloper or appears to lend credibility to the arguments made when in fact it does not.
Logical Form:
Person 1 presents weak arguments A, B, C, D, E... without Person 2 being given the opportunity to address each argument.
Example #1: The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education in the 1990s. Dr. Scott coined the term based on the behavior of creationist Duane Gish in formal debates. Dr. Scott states:
“On the radio, I have been able to stop Gish, et al, and say, ‘Wait a minute, if X is so, then wouldn't you expect Y?’ or something similar, and show that their ‘model’ is faulty. But in a debate, the evolutionist has to shut up while the creationist Gallops along, spewing out nonsense with every paragraph.”
Example #2: In a 2012 debate between Mitt Romney and President Obama, Romney overwhelmed Obama with many arguments of questionable strength, resulting in many referring to Romney’s strategy as an example of the Gish Gallop.
Exception: The two key characteristics of the Gish Gallop are 1) the number of arguments in uninterrupted succession and 2) the lack of strength of the arguments presented. The number of arguments presented is problematic when the interlocutor doesn’t have a reasonable amount of time (or space if in writing and limited by characters) to respond. The strength of the arguments is debatable, so in the case of Romney and Obama, it can be argued that Romney was making strong arguments, in which case Romney’s crime was simply presenting too many of these arguments at once.
Fun Fact: A thousand bad arguments don’t add up to a single good argument, although many people interpret numerous bad arguments as “strong evidence” (e.g., “they can’t all be wrong” - Yes, they can all be wrong.)
== UNQUOTE ==
You are also making a series of assertions in the above, offering no proof of any of them, and asking me to prove you wrong. That's the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You need to establish your assertions are true, not just put them in the form of a question and ask me to disprove them.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof
== QUOTE ==
Shifting of the Burden of Proof
onus probandi
(also known as: burden of proof [general concept], burden of proof fallacy, misplaced burden of proof, shifting the burden of proof)
Description: Making a claim that needs justification, then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite of the claim. The burden of proof is a legal and philosophical concept with differences in each domain. In everyday debate, the burden of proof typically lies with the person making the claim, but it can also lie with the person denying a well-established fact or theory. Like other non-black and white issues, there are instances where this is clearly fallacious, and those which are not as clear.
Logical Form:
Person 1 is claiming Y, which requires justification.
Person 1 demands that person 2 justify the opposite of Y.
Person 2 refuses or is unable to comply.
Therefore, Y is true.
Example #1:
Jack: I have tiny, invisible unicorns living in my anus.
Nick: How do you figure?
Jack: Can you prove that I don't?
Nick: No.
Jack: Then I do.
Explanation: Jack made a claim that requires justification. Nick asked for the evidence, but Jack shifted the burden of proof to Nick. When Nick was unable to refute Jack's (unfalsifiable) claim, Jack claimed victory.
== UNQUOTE ==
All the best,
Hank
-
25 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:
So if you go to work and you step outside the front door for a minute you're no longer at work?
You're no longer at the site of your employment because you're standing outside the front door?
== QUOTE ==
1st REPORTER : Were you in the building at the time?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD : Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir.
== UNQUOTE ==
Oswald said he was inside the building at the time of the shooting, not outside on the steps. He's on record as saying inside the bulilding. Outside the front door is outside, isn't it? It is where I come from. Or do conspiracy theorists have a different definition of inside and outside?
All the best,
Hank
-
1 hour ago, Richard Booth said:
Ah, the good ole' "McAdams Special" as I like to call it.
Deign your opponent a crackpot buff and move along. If your opponent brings up the facts again, deem it a "factoid" and move along.
You can call it whatever you like, but it still remains a logical fallacy of poisoning the well. That's what I said and cited for.
I notice you introduce additional logical fallacies, that of a straw man argument (I didn't deign my opponent a crackpot buff, nor did I deem it a factoid either.
I pointed out a logical fallacy of poisoning the well in the prior poster's post. I note you avoided my actual point entirely.
What would you call that?
Hank
-
On 4/19/2021 at 8:39 PM, Cliff Varnell said:
6.5mm Full Metal Jacket rounds don't leave shallow wounds in soft tissue.
Oswald had an unchallenged alibi as recorded by FBI SA James Hosty -- he'd gone outside to watch the P. parade.
Like I said, this is a tutorial not a debate.
May I remind you that Oswald said in the hallway, when asked where he was during the assassination, said he was in the building, because he worked in the building?
== QUOTE ==
1st REPORTER : Did you kill the President?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD : No, sir, I didn't. People keep -- [crosstalk ] Sir?
1st REPORTER : Did you shoot the President?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD : I work in that building.
1st REPORTER : Were you in the building at the time?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD : Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir
== UNQUOTE ==
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/etc/script.html
This tutorial, is it designed to expose that Oswald lied about his whereabouts during the shooting?
Just curious.
Hank
-
On 4/19/2021 at 4:55 PM, Eddy Bainbridge said:
I don't think someone who genuinely admired a great man would prod a group of people who disagree that the man was great, into criticising him so soon after his passing.
It takes someone with a big ego and no compassion to do that. I hope that you, Mr Parnell, might reflect on this behaviour and apologise to Mr McAdam's family.
So coming to McAdams defense "prods" others into attacking him, making the one who comes to someone's defense the guilty party here.
Wow.
Through the looking glass, I guess. Black is white, and white is black.
Right, Eddy?
Is that your final answer?
All the best,
Hank
-
On 4/19/2021 at 3:16 PM, W. Niederhut said:
Nonsense. What I said is definitional-- a tautology.
By definition, valid theories are frameworks for explaining all of the known facts.
If a scientific/forensic theory is contradicted by facts it is not valid, by definition.
The "Lone Nut" theory is contradicted by numerous facts-- everything from the wounds and ballistics to the obvious retrograde trajectory of JFK's head during the fatal shot.
The FBI's own ballistics tests showed that a fatal head shot fired from the TSBD would have blown off the right side of JFK's face.
The people still believe the WCR's Lone Nut theory are simply misinformed about the facts.
Not to belabor the point, but the solution of a crime will always - always - have loose ends because witnesses are human and make mistakes. So you get a witness who says "A" and another witness who says "Not A".
The solution to the crime is to rely on the hard evidence, not the witnesses.
And to object to another point of yours, you state " the obvious retrograde trajectory of JFK's head during the fatal shot".
That is false. There is no obvious retrograde trajectory of JFK's head *during* the fatal shot. In fact, as David Lifton learned from Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman (see Lifton's tome), the bullet moves the head forward during the fatal shot. The President's head moves backward starting with Z315, about a ninth of a second after the bullet that struck him in the head left his head. Travelling at 2400/feet per second, the bullet could have travelled over 250 feet if not stopped by something else. Momentum is imparted upon contact, not a ninth of a second later. Your argument there is false.
All the best,
Hank
-
On 4/19/2021 at 11:29 AM, W. Niederhut said:
I'm talking about formal logic and the philosophy of science, not propaganda or public opinion.
Contrary facts absolutely invalidate theories. A valid theory must provide a logical explanatory framework for the facts. It is invalidated by any contrary fact.
Hence, as I said, it is far easier to invalidate scientific/forensic theories than to validate them.
The "Lone Nut" theory of the JFK assassination has absolutely been invalidated by many contrary facts. Period.
JFK was not murdered by shots fired solely by a lone assassin in the TSBD.
Well, then JFK wasn't shot and killed at all. Because there is no theory that explains all the eyewitness and earwitness testimony and incorporates all the hard evidence. Some people heard no shots, some heard only one, two, three, and on up. No theory can reconcile disparate and contradictory earwitnesses testimony like that. But by far the most common number mentioned was three.
Some witnesses thought the first two shots were closer together, others thought the last two were. You cannot reconcile those facts because they are mutually exclusive.
Some witnesses thought all the shots came from the knoll. Some thought all the shots came from the depository. If you're going to credit both those groups as being right, then no solution is possible, because those groups are mutually contradictory.
Either you admit that some evidence points in the wrong direction or we're not getting anyplace.
Ball in your court.
Once you admit some evidence points in the wrong direction, we can begin to discuss which evidence should be discarded and why. But if you seriously think a solution to a crime has to reconcile all the testimony, or it can be discarded, you're absolutely wrong. That is never the case.
All the best,
Hank
-
On 4/19/2021 at 3:13 AM, Cliff Varnell said:
The Lone Nut is a cult. It requires a true belief impervious to obvious fact.
Begging the question logical fallacy.
Your assertions are not evidence.
One obvious fact is that the rifle shipped to Oswald's PO Box was found on the sixth floor shortly after the assassination. Do you dispute that obvious fact?
-
On 4/18/2021 at 10:12 PM, James DiEugenio said:
Take a look at who this guy is and what he does:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Uscinski
Can TP be serious with this approach?
The logical fallacy of poisoning the well.
That's where you don't rebut the claims, but say something you believe derogatory about the person.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Poisoning-the-Well
== QUOTE ==
Poisoning the Well
(also known as: discrediting, smear tactics, appeal to ethos [form of])
Description: To commit a preemptive ad hominem (abusive) attack against an opponent. That is, to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim.
Logical Form:
Adverse information (be it true or false) about person 1 is presented.
Therefore, the claim(s) of person 1 will be false.
== UNQUOTE ==
Can you be serious with your approach of utilizing a logical fallacy to rebut arguments that haven't been presented yet?
All the best,
Hank
-
On 4/18/2021 at 7:31 PM, Cliff Varnell said:
JFK suffered a shallow wound in his back and an entrance wound in his throat with no exit.
There were no rounds recovered from those wounds during the autopsy.
Those are the root facts of the JFKA.
Y'all need to learn how to deal with it.
So ya'll suggesting two magic bullets, then?
What, one wasn't enough for you?
If JFK was struck with a bullet in the back and another in the front, where'd they exit -- as there were no bullets seen in the full body x-rays at the autopsy. Did they just magically disappear? What evidence can you provide to make this argument reasonable?
If there were bullets that struck JFK in the back and the throat, why didn't they exit? The bullet that struck Connally went through his trunk, his wrist and into his thigh before apparently falling out onto a stretcher. What kind of bullets struck JFK twice from two different directions and didn't do significant damage? What evidence can you provide to make this argument reasonable?
All the best,
Hank
-
On 4/17/2021 at 8:20 PM, Hank Sienzant said:
The above post is dated 5/24/2018.
Here's a link to a thread that encompasses that day on International Skeptics forum.
The link starts with my reference to a post by MicahJava (his alias on the IS forum).
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12173552#post12173552
I'll leave it to others to decide who got the better of the debate, and just who turned who into a babbling mess.
On 4/17/2021 at 10:45 PM, Micah Mileto said:The case for a conspiracy in Dealey Plaza is stronger than it has ever been. What more can there be said about problems in the medical evidence such as the EOP wound, the "throat wound ignorance" story, the chest tubes, the reports of a hole in one of the temples, etc. The only thing left to do is exhume the grave at Arlington and see what there is left.
I was hoping you could link to a post or two where you believe you got the better of me and turned me into a "babbling mess" rather than just alluding to some supposed problems with the evidence. If you could be so kind as to link to the subject matter where you think you got the better of me, I'd really appreciate it.
Thanks so much,
Hank
-
On 4/18/2021 at 6:29 PM, Cliff Varnell said:
No, there is a unified conspiracy fact pattern based on the First Day Evidence: The physical evidence recovered with the body; the contemporaneous written reports of men in position of authority; the authenticated cervical x-ray; the overwhelming consensus ear/eye witness statements.
The bullet holes in the clothes are four inches below the bottom of the collars, which lines up with the Third Thoracic Vertebra.
Admiral Burkley's Death Certificate (signed off as "verified") put the back wound at T3.
The autopsy face sheet filled out by James Curtis Jenkins (signed off as "verified") put the back wound closer to T4 than T3.
Soon after the autopsy FBI SAs James Sibert and Francis O'Neill cabled FBI HQ to report a shallow wound in the back.
In his contemporaneous notes Mortician Thomas Robinson recorded a back wound 5 inches below the neck.
Dr. Ronald Jones and Dr. James Carrico at Parkland wrote contemporaneous notes recording an entrance wound in the throat.
The authenticated cervical x-ray shows a hairline fracture of right T1 transverse process and an air pocket overlaying the right T1/C7 transverse processes -- a trajectory which lines up with the damaged trachea.
The night of the autopsy Humes, Boswell, and Finck looked at the back wound, which had no exit and no bullet, and asked the FBI men if there existed rounds which would dissolve in the body.
There were 16 eye-witnesses to a back wound consistent with T3, and 14 eye-witnesses to the throat entrance wound.
There are 56 ear-witnesses to a "bang...bang bang" shot pattern.
And let's not forget FBI SA James Hosty's interview notes with Oswald which recorded Oswald sayng he'd gone outside to watch the "P. parade."
The First Day Evidence is a unified fact pattern.
Cliff,
Wait, let's start with the last "fact", and see what we can glean from that, okay?
I don't think the last "fact" is meaningful in any way.
Yes, it's a "fact" that Hosty notes that. Presumably, you want to accept Hosty's word on that, but others on this board list Hosty as a member of the cover-up, if not the conspiracy. Even accepting the "fact" that Oswald did indeed tell Hosty that, do we accept the word of the accused in this case - and every case - when they claim they were somewhere at the time of the crime?
I remind you that serial killer Theodore Robert "Ted" Bundy denied killing anyone until a few days before his execution date -- at which point he started singing like a canary, hoping to exchange his knowledge of what people he killed and where he disposed of their bodies for additional time to live. But from the time of his first arrest for kidnapping until those final days (over a decade) he maintained his innocence.
It's quite simple - the accused doesn't necessarily have an unbiased viewpoint, and isn't always the most trustworthy individual. That's true in case after case.
Or do we only reserve this special dispensation for Oswald, accepting everything he saiid at face value? He also said he didn't bring any long package to the Depository that day, but at least two people saw him with one. Were they both mistaken or did Oswald have a package of two to three feet long that morning, and was Oswald less than forthcoming?
All the best,
Hank
-
On 4/17/2021 at 9:54 PM, Matt Allison said:
No normal person gets that wound up trying to defend something as speculative as the WC unless in service to an agenda.
Well, that's the logical fallacy of begging the question. You haven't establish the Warren Commission was 'speculative' (you've only asserted it) and you're assuming everyone who defends it must have some agenda other than the truth.
Don't paint those who might have a differing opinion with such a broad brush.
All the Best,
Hank
-
On 5/24/2018 at 3:34 PM, Micah Mileto said:
Hank Sienzant ? I've been on about 3 threads about jfk with that guy on internationalskeptics for about 2 years now. Just by arguing a few key medical evidence points (the EOP wound, the doctors alleged ignorance of the throat wound), I've turned that guy into a babbling mess. That dude plays dumb and uses just about every logical fallacy known to man, anything to stretch the length of a thread to fill it with spam. He misunderstands key facts and often pretends to forget key facts, even if they were recently discussed with him before. That's in cases where he's at least being coherent.
And I only got into this stuff for about 2 years. Seriously, try checking out the 3 most recent JFK threads on ISF. I am the one with Rocky the Squirrel as the avatar.
The above post is dated 5/24/2018.
Here's a link to a thread that encompasses that day on International Skeptics forum.
The link starts with my reference to a post by MicahJava (his alias on the IS forum).
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12173552#post12173552
I'll leave it to others to decide who got the better of the debate, and just who turned who into a babbling mess.
-
8 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:
Is this debate one we can be linked to? If so, can you provide this?
Found it here:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html
-
What explains why the Encyclopedia Britannica "is so bad on the JFK case"?
https://www.britannica.com/event/assassination-of-John-F-Kennedy
"... at about 12:30 PM, shots rang out. A bullet pierced the base of the neck of the president, exited through his throat, and then likely (according to the Warren Report) passed through Governor Connally’s shoulder and wrist, ultimately hitting his thigh. Another bullet struck Kennedy in the back of the head.... Bullet casings were found near a window on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building overlooking the plaza; a rifle (later proved to have been owned by Oswald) was discovered elsewhere on the sixth floor... Meanwhile, Oswald made his way to the boardinghouse where he had been staying. Some 15 minutes after leaving the boardinghouse, he was confronted by a Dallas policeman, J.D.Tippit, who is thought to have believed that Oswald matched the description. Oswald shot and killed Tippit with a .38 revolver in the presence of a number of witnesses and was later seen entering the Texas Theatre, where at 1:50 PM he was apprehended by police."
I doubt if you would agree with much of just the small portion quoted above.
-
Hank, why do you have to quote a comment right about yours?
I guess you missed this twice then:
And Sandy has done a very nice job in showing that the money order part of the transaction is also dubious.
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 bank stamps.
First, you need to understand that Federal Reserve Banks use "operating circulars" to inform banks what their requirements are. A page on the FRB website states the following:
"Federal Reserve Financial Services are governed by the terms and conditions that are set forth in the following operating circulars."
Having understood that, now let's look at FRB Revision 4928 of Operating Circular No. 4. Dated 1960 and in effect in 1963, it makes the following statements:
Items which will be accepted as cash items
1. The following will be accepted for collection as cash items:
(1) Checks drawn on banks or banking institutions (including private
bankers) located in any Federal Reserve District which are collectible
at par in funds acceptable to the collecting Federal Reserve Bank. The
“ Federal Reserve Par List,” indicating the banks upon which checks will
be received by Federal Reserve Banks for collection and credit, is fur
nished from time to time and a supplement is furnished each month
showing changes subsequent to the last complete list. This list is subject
to change without notice and the right is reserved to return without
presentment any items drawn on banks which may have withdrawn or
may have been removed from the list or may have been reported elosed.
(2) Government checks drawn on the Treasurer of the United States.
(3) Postal money orders (United States postal money orders; United
States international postal money orders; and domestic-international
postal money orders).
(4) Such other items, collectible at par in funds acceptable to the
Federal Reserve Bank of the District in which such items are payable, as
we may be willing to accept as cash items.
o
o
o
Endorsements
13. All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank
direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the
order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the
order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar
endorsement. Cash items will be accepted by us, and by other Federal
Reserve Banks, only upon the understanding and condition that all
prior endorsements are guaranteed by the sending bank. There should
be incorporated in the endorsement of the sending bank the phrase,
“ All prior endorsements guaranteed.” 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 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.
THEREFORE...
Postal money orders required bank endorsement stamps in 1963. Just as they always have. (A fact I've also documented in this thread.)
Maybe if you were open to the truth and would actually read my posts, you would have already known this.
Asked and answered. We've covered all that ground already.
Endorsements
13. All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank
direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the
order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the
order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar
endorsement.
What part of PAY TO THE ORDER OF FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO didn't you understand, Sandy?
And it certainly sounds like they weren't going to nitpick it, as they also specify they'd be happy "with some similar endorsement".
That pay-to stamp from Kleins exactly meets the requirement specified in the paragraph you cite.
Doesn't it?
Hank
It is supposed to be endorsed to the Federal Reserve Bank, Hank. Either by name, or by stamping the back with the following generic text:
"Pay to the order of any bank, banker or trust company."
Because if it endorsed in a generic way like that, then any such institution can accept the check (or money order, etc.)....
Contrary to your assertion, it doesn't need the specific words "Pay to the order of any bank...", but rather, it needs to be stamped "Pay to the order of [any bank name here]" and that's made clear because the language isn't in quotes in your section you quoted. It also says some "similar endorsement" will work just as well.
So we're done here.
It was so stamped - just as you admit the language requires. By Kleins. Remember?
PAY TO THE ORDER OF
THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO
50 91144
KLEINS SPORTING GOODS, INC.
We covered all this ground previously.
Like here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22439&p=320642
But thanks again for that admission it just needs to be stamped "Pay to the order of any bank". And certainly, FIRST NATIONAL OF CHICAGO qualified as any bank, didn't it?
Hank
-
Hank, why do you have to quote a comment right about yours?
I guess you missed this twice then:
And Sandy has done a very nice job in showing that the money order part of the transaction is also dubious.
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 bank stamps.
First, you need to understand that Federal Reserve Banks use "operating circulars" to inform banks what their requirements are. A page on the FRB website states the following:
"Federal Reserve Financial Services are governed by the terms and conditions that are set forth in the following operating circulars."
Having understood that, now let's look at FRB Revision 4928 of Operating Circular No. 4. Dated 1960 and in effect in 1963, it makes the following statements:
Items which will be accepted as cash items
1. The following will be accepted for collection as cash items:
(1) Checks drawn on banks or banking institutions (including private
bankers) located in any Federal Reserve District which are collectible
at par in funds acceptable to the collecting Federal Reserve Bank. The
“ Federal Reserve Par List,” indicating the banks upon which checks will
be received by Federal Reserve Banks for collection and credit, is fur
nished from time to time and a supplement is furnished each month
showing changes subsequent to the last complete list. This list is subject
to change without notice and the right is reserved to return without
presentment any items drawn on banks which may have withdrawn or
may have been removed from the list or may have been reported elosed.
(2) Government checks drawn on the Treasurer of the United States.
(3) Postal money orders (United States postal money orders; United
States international postal money orders; and domestic-international
postal money orders).
(4) Such other items, collectible at par in funds acceptable to the
Federal Reserve Bank of the District in which such items are payable, as
we may be willing to accept as cash items.
o
o
o
Endorsements
13. All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank
direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the
order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the
order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar
endorsement. Cash items will be accepted by us, and by other Federal
Reserve Banks, only upon the understanding and condition that all
prior endorsements are guaranteed by the sending bank. There should
be incorporated in the endorsement of the sending bank the phrase,
“ All prior endorsements guaranteed.” 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 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.
THEREFORE...
Postal money orders required bank endorsement stamps in 1963. Just as they always have. (A fact I've also documented in this thread.)
Maybe if you were open to the truth and would actually read my posts, you would have already known this.
Asked and answered. We've covered all that ground already.
Endorsements
13. All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank
direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the
order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the
order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar
endorsement.
What part of PAY TO THE ORDER OF FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO didn't you understand, Sandy?
And it certainly sounds like they weren't going to nitpick it, as they also specify they'd be happy "with some similar endorsement".
That pay-to stamp from Kleins exactly meets the requirement specified in the paragraph you cite.
Doesn't it?
Hank
It is supposed to be endorsed to the Federal Reserve Bank, Hank. Either by name, or by stamping the back with the following generic text:
"Pay to the order of any bank, banker or trust company."
Because if it endorsed in a generic way like that, then any such institution can accept the check (or money order, etc.).
Read the first paragraph of this legal document, and you will see that it talks about this type of endorsement. Click this to see a draft using this type of endorsement.
In addition to the endorsement, paragraph #13 states that the date and bank's ABA number also be stamped.
In addition to the endorsement, paragraph #13 states that the date and bank's ABA number also be stamped.
And we covered that too. The language you cited above that states if any of that is missing, the mere act of submitting it for payment means it's the equivalent of submission with all the necessary info...
"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..."
Quite simply, you haven't proven what you claimed to have established.
As I asked before, what's the point of putting in a bunch of improvements to allow the money orders to be processed by machine if you're still going to insist on a hand stamp for every one? And additionally, if a hand-stamp isn't there or is worded improperly or is a HANDWRITTEN endorsement, is a 1963 machine going to be able to determine that which is proper and which is not, and kick it out as invalid? Or will it read the punch-holes and just process the money order and mark it as paid in the system? The whole point of the changes to the IBM-punch card money order was to speed up processing by making it possible for machines to do the processing, and replace the previous system of everything being done by humans. Quite frankly, what you're insisting on doesn't appear to make much sense.
In addition, your cited case law example doesn't appear to apply here, "Where a collecting bank indorses "Pay to the order of any Bank, Banker or Trust Co., prior endorsements guaranteed," as there is no such collecting bank endorsement on the money order in question (the collecting bank would be the FRB, wouldn't it?), and the question before the court concerned a check, not a money order. Those are fundamentally different financial instruments, as we've previously discussed. It also concerns Georgia case law, not Texas nor federal law, and you have not shown that Georgia law extends to Texas or the federal government, and likewise extends from checks to money orders. And the language previously cited, that the act of submission itself, protects the FRB from any payments in error, and makes the submitting bank liable, not the FRB.
So it doesn't appear your cited example establishes anything about the money order in question.
Hank
-
Klein's allegedly shipped a rifle upon receipt of an order for the rifle and a PMO. As Jim Di maintains, that's one transaction; purchase and sale.
If one part of the alleged transaction is demonstrated to be untrue, the whole transaction is untrue. No straw man at all.
Put other ways: [1] If Oswald never paid for the rifle, he never received the rifle. [2] If Oswald never received the rifle, he never paid for the rifle. [3] Unless garden-variety commerce worked differently for the transaction in question.
I suggest all here focus on this alleged transaction. Even though many other matters scream for your attention. Matters such as Allen Dulles.
This transaction goes to the heart of the assassination and involves a paper trail that is flawed. The flawed paper trail not only screams cover-up but also points a finger at William Waldman and other executives at Klein's.
It's a finger worth examining.
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-examples.
But I understand why you have to cite assumptions. You have no real evidence.
Hank
-
Hank, why do you have to quote a comment right about yours?
I guess you missed this twice then:
And Sandy has done a very nice job in showing that the money order part of the transaction is also dubious.
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 bank stamps.
First, you need to understand that Federal Reserve Banks use "operating circulars" to inform banks what their requirements are. A page on the FRB website states the following:
"Federal Reserve Financial Services are governed by the terms and conditions that are set forth in the following operating circulars."
Having understood that, now let's look at FRB Revision 4928 of Operating Circular No. 4. Dated 1960 and in effect in 1963, it makes the following statements:
Items which will be accepted as cash items
1. The following will be accepted for collection as cash items:
(1) Checks drawn on banks or banking institutions (including private
bankers) located in any Federal Reserve District which are collectible
at par in funds acceptable to the collecting Federal Reserve Bank. The
“ Federal Reserve Par List,” indicating the banks upon which checks will
be received by Federal Reserve Banks for collection and credit, is fur
nished from time to time and a supplement is furnished each month
showing changes subsequent to the last complete list. This list is subject
to change without notice and the right is reserved to return without
presentment any items drawn on banks which may have withdrawn or
may have been removed from the list or may have been reported elosed.
(2) Government checks drawn on the Treasurer of the United States.
(3) Postal money orders (United States postal money orders; United
States international postal money orders; and domestic-international
postal money orders).
(4) Such other items, collectible at par in funds acceptable to the
Federal Reserve Bank of the District in which such items are payable, as
we may be willing to accept as cash items.
o
o
o
Endorsements
13. All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank
direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the
order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the
order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar
endorsement. Cash items will be accepted by us, and by other Federal
Reserve Banks, only upon the understanding and condition that all
prior endorsements are guaranteed by the sending bank. There should
be incorporated in the endorsement of the sending bank the phrase,
“ All prior endorsements guaranteed.” 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 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.
THEREFORE...
Postal money orders required bank endorsement stamps in 1963. Just as they always have. (A fact I've also documented in this thread.)
Maybe if you were open to the truth and would actually read my posts, you would have already known this.
Asked and answered. We've covered all that ground already.
Endorsements
13. All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank
direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the
order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the
order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar
endorsement.
What part of PAY TO THE ORDER OF THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO didn't you understand, Sandy?
And it certainly sounds like they weren't going to nitpick it, as they also specify they'd be happy "with some similar endorsement".
That pay-to stamp from Kleins exactly meets the requirement specified in the paragraph you cite.
Doesn't it?
Hank
PS: All this was covered in the past.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22439&p=320774
-
Hank, why do you have to quote a comment right about yours?
I guess you missed this twice then:
And Sandy has done a very nice job in showing that the money order part of the transaction is also dubious.
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.
-
Please Hank, this has all been gone over ad nauseum.
Are you going to play the Curtis guy for us, on this thread now?
The weight of the evidence is that Oswald never had that rifle in his hands.
Period. And you can look up the work of Gallagher, Moyer, Josephs, and Gil Jesus, among others, to show that. They produce a quantum of evidence in that regard. Its old hat today. Even your buddy, and Cheryl Abbate's good pal, McAdams had to admit its the wrong rifle. (Note, I did not even mention Armstrong.)
And Sandy has done a very nice job in showing that the money order part of the transaction is also dubious.
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
-
Geez Hank, is not:
A. The money order
directly related to
B. The rifle?
A was supposed to pay for B, correct?
Therefore if Oswald never got B, then the question becomes why is that?
Maybe because he never sent the payment?
Thanks for playing my Ed McMahon.
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
-
At least I got you to back u pin the whole A is not related to B is not related to C malarkey.
But I can't believe you missed all that yakking about the money order?
Incredible.
What I am showing is that all of this is fundamentally related to each other.
And you don't like it.
I really can't blame you. Because it's a loser for your side.
Oswald never had that rifle. Which makes everything about that transaction dubious.
You keep talking about the rifle when the subject of this thread is the money order.
Why is that, Jim?
John McAdams has passed on
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Kleins paperwork says they shipped the rifle to Oswald's PO Box. You often order stuff and get it for free?
Your claims about the money order are unproven, and we both know it. You're assuming the bank had to stamp the money order, but the rules quoted in another thread don't say that. The Kleins stamp on the money order identifies both the bank it was deposited to and the account it was deposited to. What more do you need to track it back?
Hank