Jump to content
The Education Forum

Hank Sienzant

Members
  • Content Count

    60
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hank Sienzant

  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
  16. 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 to have researched it, because he urges "serious researchers" to do so. The quote I saw was: "The "bleed-thru" of the ink is a strong indication that postal money order 2,202,130,462, shown as CE 788, was not original card stock." -- John Armstrong That is wrong. Right? Hank Hank, DVP and I already had a mini-debate over the use of the words like "appears" and "indicates." If you care
  17. ​ It's right there next to the WARNING.. 15-119/000 ... in the old style format. Hank
  18. William Waldman testified that that number was the Klein's "account number". Whether or not some of those numbers signify "ABA transit numbers", I have no idea.... ABA transit (routing) numbers are nine digits. The Klein's account number would bear no relation to an ABA transit number. A PMO, unlike a check, is drawn on the Post Office rather than a bank. All national banks must be members of the Federal Reserve system; state-chartered banks may join but do not have to. When a PMO was presented to a Federal Reserve member bank like FNB in Chicago, the PMO wasn't going to pass through any
  19. David, thanks for the info. ​You are correct, the "50 91144" number on the postal money order Klein's stamp is the account number of Kleins at the First National Bank of Chicago. It's not the ABA routing number as I surmised it might be. ​Hank
  20. 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
  21. My "research," reflecting my level of interest, has been limited to what I could find through Google. I was not able to find a copy of the Agreement from any year. For someone with a higher level of interest, a FOIA request should turn up everything that is available at minimal expense. The problem is, we cannot assume anything. There was in 1963 an Agreement, a Code of Federal Regulations, a Federal Reserve Regulation J, a variety of operating circulars, and some standard procedure for processing PMOs at the level of the local bank, the Federal Reserve (as agent for the Postal Service) an
  22. In neither case did the person say anything had been proven. Right on the Armstrong website the following statement is made regarding the bleed-thru: "NOTE: Serious researchers should be focusing attention on the inked postal stamps that appear on the front of the money order (Dallas, TX, Mar 12, 1963), the inked endorsement stamp (Klein's) and the inked initials and dates that appear on the back of this money order. An explanation is needed as to how ink from the postal stamp and ink from the initials/dates can "bleed" thru to the other side of the money order. Postal money orders were made
  23. Hi Jim, The subject of this thread is different than the subject you're trying to change it to. That's a LOGICAL FALLACY known as a red herring (AKA "changing the subject"). Let me explain: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html Fallacy: Red Herring Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase. 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 "reasoni
  24. REMINDER: The above originally appeared in post #309 in this thread. Hank Hank, Bingo! Thank you for presenting this to us in such an easy to understand way. --Tommy Nonsense. There is no mark or endorsement of any kind from the First National Bank of Chicago, which there should be. Nor is there a mark or endorsement from the district FRB or national FRB. No one has ever said there was no rubber stamp appearing to be from Kleins on the money order. That is obvious. Nonsense. yourself. The quote says "... or endorsed TO THE ORDER OF any bank", Jim. And we have that. PAY TO
×
×
  • Create New...