Challenge for Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

Tommy,

I've notice in the postal money order debate that you'll agree with nearly anyone who presents an argument that bank stamps weren't required on PMOs in 1963. Maybe you believe they were never required.

I've given documentary proof that they were required. Lance Payette disagrees. He claims that bank employees knew that their stamps weren't really required -- in spite of the documents stating they were -- and so they ignored the requirement.

I've asked Lance multiple times to give any evidence to support his claim. He never has. What I don't like is that he states his position is if it were fact. But there is apparently no evidence supporting his claim.

It's at that point in the debate when you typically give Lance a big congratulations by saying "Thanks .... for showing us that in 1963 postal money orders did not require endorsements or bank stamps."

Here's my challenge, Tommy. Prove to me that postal money orders did not require bank stamps in 1963. You can use Lance Payette's material to prove it if you want. Or that Hank guy's material. Or DVP's. Or your own material. But just prove it. Because I want to see why you think Lance is right.

In post #2 I will present the proof that bank stamps were indeed required on postal money orders in 1963. You can post your proof after that.

Edited January 9, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

Between 1951 and 1987 the requirement for bank stamps on PMOs was published in the Federal Reserve's Regulation J, and also in FRB Operating Circulars. (FRB = Federal Reserve Bank)

Here is the FRB requirement for bank stamps on PMOs for 1963, copied from FRB Operating Circular 4928:

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presentment any items drawn on banks which may have withdrawn or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.

Edited January 9, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Thomas Graves]

Tommy,

I've notice [sic] in the postal money order debate that you'll agree with nearly anyone who presents an argument that bank stamps weren't required on PMOs in 1963. Maybe you believe they were never required.

I've given documentary proof that they were required. Lance Payette disagrees. He claims that bank employees knew that their stamps weren't really required -- in spite of the documents stating they were -- and so they ignored the requirement.

I've asked Lance multiple times to give any evidence to support his claim. He never has. What I don't like is that he states his position is if it were fact. But there is apparently no evidence supporting his claim.

It's at that point in the debate when you typically give Lance a big congratulations by saying "Thanks .... for showing us that in 1963 postal money orders did not require endorsements or bank stamps."

Here's my challenge, Tommy. Prove to me that postal money orders did not require bank stamps in 1963. You can use Lance Payette's material to prove it if you want. Or that Hank guy's material. Or DVP's. Or your own material. But just prove it. Because I want to see why you think Lance is right.

In post #2 I will present the proof that bank stamps were indeed required on postal money orders in 1963. You can post your proof after that.

Dear Sandy,

You're asking me to prove a negative, which is next to impossible to do, especially in the context of the JFK assassination, fraught with allegations of forgery and alteration as it is,

I therefore respectfully decline your offer.

It logically should be much easier for you to prove the positive, i.e. that postal money orders in 1963 required an endorsement or a dated bank stamp, by posting here some photographs of 1963 postal money orders which do have said endorsements / indorsements or bank stamps.

The ball is in your court, Sandy.

Has been for a long time.

--Tommy

Edited January 9, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

Okay, so you admit that you don't know why Lance is right. And you don't know why you say he is right.

As for the ball being in my court.... I already posted the proof. Post #2.

[Greg Burnham]

Tommy,

It is not impossible or "next to impossible" to prove a negative. The claim that one cannot prove a negative has been repeated so often that it is taken as true by those who are not well versed in logic.

As a rather simple example, I can easily prove to you that I do not have your computer in my possession. After all, you just used that computer to write your post.

Even in a courtroom proof of a negative (not guilty), although not required, goes a long way if proper evidence exists. For example, if a suspect is accused of committing a murder in Los Angeles, but is is later discovered that he was already in custody in San Francisco for shop lifting, then that is proof (an alibi) that he did NOT commit murder in LA.

Even a single example of the ability to "prove a negative" disproves your claim.

C'mon, you can do better than that can't you?

Sandy posted proof for his claim. You have not.

Will it help if the challenge is phrased in the positive for you? For instance, please provide proof positive that PMO's were honored absent bank stamps and/or other endorsements.

Edited January 9, 2016 by Greg Burnham

[Thomas Graves]

Okay, so you admit that you don't know why Lance is right. And you don't know why you say he is right.

As for the ball being in my court.... I already posted the proof. Post #2.

Dear Sandy,

Although you are trying to put words in my mouth, I suggest that you declare yourself the winner. You'll be much happier that way. Discerning members will realize, however, that it all revolves around the legal concept of agency, as Lance so eloquently explained. Perhaps you should re-read (or just read for the first time) his most recent post.

Can't find any photos of early 1960's postal money orders?

The ball is still in your court, whether you realize it or not.

--Tommy

Edited January 9, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

Okay, so you admit that you don't know why Lance is right. And you don't know why you say he is right.

As for the ball being in my court.... I already posted the proof. Post #2.

Dear Sandy,

Although you are trying to put words in my mouth, I suggest that you declare yourself the winner. You'll be much happier that way. Discerning members will realize, however, that it all revolves around the legal concept of agency, as Lance so eloquently explained. Perhaps you should re-read (or just read for the first time) his most recent post.

Can't find any photos of early 1960's postal money orders?

The ball is still in your court, whether you realize it or not.

--Tommy

I'm not trying to be the winner, Tommy. I'm trying to figure out why you choose the least logical of two choices.

I have read everything Lance has posted on the thread and have responded to it.

[James DiEugenio]

This one is really funny, even Duncan.

[Thomas Graves]

Okay, so you admit that you don't know why Lance is right. And you don't know why you say he is right.

As for the ball being in my court.... I already posted the proof. Post #2.

Dear Sandy,

Although you are trying to put words in my mouth, I suggest that you declare yourself the winner. You'll be much happier that way. Discerning members will realize, however, that it all revolves around the legal concept of agency, as Lance so eloquently explained. Perhaps you should re-read (or just read for the first time) his most recent post.

Can't find any photos of early 1960's postal money orders?

The ball is still in your court, whether you realize it or not.

--Tommy

I'm not trying to be the winner, Tommy. I'm trying to figure out why you choose the least logical of two choices.

I have read everything Lance has posted on the thread and have responded to it.

Dear Sandy,

Due to your admirable natural shyness and humility, I guess I'll just have to declare you "the winner."

By my remaining silent on this thread, everyone should assume that you indeed are "the winner."

Congratulations!

By the way, have you got any photos of early 1960's postal money orders? Any at all?

--Tommy

[Thomas Graves]

On 1/9/2016 at 11:02 AM, Duncan MacRae said:

On 1/9/2016 at 10:53 AM, Greg Burnham said:

Tommy,

It is not impossible or "next to impossible" to prove a negative. The claim that one cannot prove a negative has been repeated so often that it is taken as true by those who are not well versed in logic.

As a rather simple example, I can easily prove to you that I do not have your computer in my possession. After all, you just used that computer to write your post.

Even in a courtroom proof of a negative (not guilty), although not required, goes along way if proper evidence exists. For example, if a suspect is accused of committing murder in Los Angeles, but was already in custody in San Francisco for shop lifting, that is proof that he did NOT commit murder in LA.

Even a single example of the ability to "prove a negative" disproves your claim.

C'mon, you can do better than that can't you?

While I agree with you, you don't know for a fact that Tommy used his own computer to make his post.

Exactly, Duncan!

I was at the library, and I still am!

LOL

--Tommy

And my computer, which I left at home, just might be missing.

I don't know if it is or not because I'm not there. And Greg does live in San Diego.

Hmmm.

Maybe I should hurry home and see if my cat "Schrodinger" is alive or dead, I mean I mean I mean  .... if my computer is there or not.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

I'm not trying to be the winner, Tommy. I'm trying to figure out why you choose the least logical of two choices.

I have read everything Lance has posted on the thread and have responded to it.

Dear Sandy,

Due to your admirable natural shyness and humility, I guess I'll just have to declare you "the winner."

By my remaining silent on this thread, everyone should assume that you indeed are "the winner."

Congratulations!

By the way, have you got any photos of early 1960's postal money orders? Any at all?

--Tommy

As I said, I don't want to be the winner. I just want to understand why you pick the less likely of two choices.

I'll assume by your non-response that you don't want to reveal why you do that regarding the postal money order.

[Thomas Graves]

I'm not trying to be the winner, Tommy. I'm trying to figure out why you choose the least logical of two choices.

I have read everything Lance has posted on the thread and have responded to it.

Dear Sandy,

Due to your admirable natural shyness and humility, I guess I'll just have to declare you "the winner."

By my remaining silent on this thread, everyone should assume that you indeed are "the winner."

Congratulations!

By the way, have you got any photos of early 1960's postal money orders? Any at all?

--Tommy

As I said, I don't want to be the winner. I just want to understand why you pick the less likely of two choices.

I'll assume by your non-response that you don't want to reveal why you do that regarding the postal money order.

Dear Sandy,

You have my permission to assume anything you want to. I recommend, however, that you not assume that I am particularly intelligent, as you may have implied in another thread entitled "What Makes Tommy Tick?"

--Tommy

Edited January 9, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[David Von Pein]

I've notice in the postal money order debate that [Tommy Graves] agrees with nearly anyone who presents an argument that bank stamps weren't required on PMOs in 1963. Maybe you believe they were never required. I've given documentary proof that they were required. .... I just want to understand why you pick the less likely of two choices.

If you don't mind my interjection here....

Given all the things that ARE present and accounted for on the Hidell PMO (including Oswald's own handwriting, the Klein's stamp, and the File Locator Number), I think the most reasonable conclusion to reach is that it must NOT have been a mandatory requirement for the Hidell Postal Money Order to be stamped by the First National Bank of Chicago (regardless of the "documentary proof" previously supplied by Mr. Sandy Larsen).

There are just too many things about the Hidell PMO that are proving beyond all reasonable doubt, in my opinion, that it is a legitimate document that was handled by every person or company or bank that should have handled it if it had been properly handled and processed in 1963 -- from Oswald himself, to Klein's, to the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago, and then to the FRB storage facility in Alexandria/Washington.

So I guess a good question to ask conspiracy theorists at this point might be this question:

How many things that appear to be legitimate about the Hidell money order does it take for a stubborn CTer to admit that the money order is, in fact, very likely a legitimate document?

I also have little doubt that even if a few First National Bank markings had been stamped on the Hidell PMO, there would still be a dedicated group of conspiracists who would continue to claim that the PMO is a fake, with those CTers merely adding any and all FNB endorsements to their list of things that were forged by the unnamed plotters who were allegedly framing Lee Harvey Oswald.

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Very funny.

Do you want to explain the whole thing about the SR 71 delivery time to the bank in Chicago from Dallas?

http://www.migflug.com/jetflights/remarkable-airplanes-of-the-world-part-1-the-fastest.html

Oh, no? Then I will.

If the transaction is genuine, one has to buy the following:

One has to beleive that whenever Oswald got this money order--and there is no answer to that question--

1.that it was mailed to Chicago,

2.landed at the airport,

3.was shipped to the main post office,

4.then sorted out by hand with no zip codes,

5.and then picked up by truck,

6.distributed to the local post office,

7.given to the hand carrier,

8.who then took it to Klein's,

9.and then Klein's sorted that days incoming funds by three categories,

10.and then brought it over to the bank,

11.and then the bank went through all the funds by category and then deposited into the account.

Elapsed time for the above: less than 24 hours.

LOL

ROTF

LMAO

Now, what does Davey say when he is presented with the above grotesquerie; please sit down. You might hurt yourself.

Davey says: It was air mail.

Davey, just about any piece of mail that travels that distance is air mail. I once sent a letter about 200 miles. It went air mail. But it took two days to get there. And that is today with all the technology, zip codes and censors, etc we have. Back then: none.

To me, this and this alone, shows you the whole thing was manufactured. And for DVP to say that, heck its all falling into place--hey, maybe they did use SR 71's-- is utterly ridiculous. Go ahead and present this to a jury with all the postal officials on the witness stand. Except of course, the guy who started this whole thing, Harry Holmes.

And BTW Davey, when did Oswald mail the money order?

Edited January 9, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

Re: Jim DiEugenio's latest round of things he thinks are worthy of numerous LOLs and ROTFs, I'll repeat some things that I know DiEugenio has seen multiple times before, but he'll pretend I've never addressed them before.....

BOB PRUDHOMME SAID:

You've almost given in to the possibility of a conspiracy, Dave, and it is obvious you are now grappling with your inner demons.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Not even close, Bob.

The lack of a bank stamp (or even two) doesn't prove that money order is fake. It's got OSWALD'S writing on it and it's got KLEIN'S stamp on it. And it's a document that perfectly aligns with everything found in Waldman Exhibit #7 --

>> The "Hidell" name to whom Klein's mailed the rifle.

>> The PO Box number to which Klein's sent the rifle.

>> The exact dollar amount ($21.45), which is precisely the amount found in Waldman 7 as well. (And the "M.O." notation written by Klein's right underneath the "Amount Enclosed" line on Waldman 7.)

>> And the dates line up nicely too (March 12 for the M.O. purchase; and March 13 on Waldman #7) --- although CTers think it was impossible for the letter/money order to get to Chicago in just one day; but a 29-year veteran of the U.S. Post Office [Jimmy Orr] thinks otherwise....

DAVID VON PEIN SAID [iN THIS DISCUSSION]:

Jimmy, in your experience, in general, how long does it take an air mail letter to go from Dallas, Texas, to Chicago, Illinois (provided the letter was mailed no later than 10:30 AM local Dallas time)?

JIMMY ORR SAID:

David,

Cancelled in Dallas by 10:30 AM and flown to Chicago that afternoon. Arrival for mail processing at a Chicago General Mail Facility during the early morning hours of the 13th and on the street for delivery to Klein's that same day. Makes perfect sense considering the volumes handled in 1963.

[End Quote.]

~~~~~~~~~~~~

So everything about the money order aligns with the Klein's internal paperwork. So that means KLEIN'S was a major part of the plot to frame Oswald too, if the CTers are right about this thing. And that's not a reasonable thing to think, IMO.

And BTW Davey, when did Oswald mail the money order?

I just answered this a few days ago (and aimed the answer at DiEugenio in another thread). Jim's memory must be nonexistent, I guess. ~shrug~

Reprise.....

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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

And regarding "Air Mail"....

A letter that was mailed in January 1952 could go all the way across the country overnight--from California to New York. (Audio below.)

https://app.box.com/s/efa74dw67xv2t372npky

Edited January 9, 2016 by David Von Pein