Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Lance Payette

Members
  • Content count

    210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lance Payette

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 03/03/1950

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Arizona
  1. New Article by John Armstrong

    And this is a key reason I believe the H&L theory is not credible. If I, as a complete novice assassination planner, were orchestrating an H&L scenario, I would make damn sure there were no screaming, obvious inconsistencies between Harvey and Lee. If one of them couldn't drive, the other certainly wouldn't be observed driving in circumstances where this was completely unnecessary and only served to call attention to himself. If we begin with the H&L theory as our gospel, then we are indeed forced to conclude that "the best and brightest assassination planners in the world" turned into the Three Stooges when it came to the framing of LHO. I and others have pointed out this problem with every elaborate conspiracy theory - the conspirators are geniuses at steps 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 but inexplicably become the Three Stooges or Keystone Cops at steps 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10. If one does not begin with an elaborate conspiracy theory as his gospel, one is not forced to pound round evidence into square theories. You may recall that, in connection with the "mail order rifle" threads, I did check some of Armstrong's citations - and they did not check out. They did not check out at all. I pointed out that they did not check out and requested an explanation. There was none. The same bogus statements supported by those "citations" appear throughout the conspiracy literature because the "noted researchers" obviously did not check them out.
  2. Lee Harvey Oswald and the Linguistic Problem

    People keep seeing and hearing what they want to see and hear. I probably speak 400 words of Russian and know some rudimentary grammar. Watching a Russian movie or listening to a conversation when we are in Belarus, however, I can follow pretty much nothing. It all just happens too fast. I can well believe someone attempting to speak with me in a Minsk hospital would conclude I knew no Russian at all. But, since I do know 400 words of Russian and have been watching Russian movies and joking around with my Russian wife in pigeon Russian for the past 9 years, I can also well believe that if we moved to Minsk and I were immersed in the culture for 18 months, at the end of that time someone who had met me when I arrived would conclude I was a language genius. It just isn't that mysterious - unless you "need" a mystery to fit your pet theory. To Paul's point, when I first arrived and was forced to be saying "I don't understand" all the time (which sounds like "YANEEPENEEMYO"), our relatives were amazed at my "native" pronunciation. They mocked my brother-in-law, who had prepared extensively for his first visit but went around saying "YAW ... KNEE ... PENNY ... MY ... OOO" like a hillbilly. The difference was that I had used the Pimsleur CD course and thus had listened to and pronounced the words hundreds of times, whereas he had used a written course.
  3. Oswald Leaving TSBD?

    Just for what it's worth, from my previous incarnation as an advertising/graphics guy: If you want a really intense black in black-and-white, you use red. You use light blue for guide lines and things that you want to disappear, because it is essentially invisible.
  4. Oswald’s Proficiency in the Russian Language

    While it is a lot more fun if LHO's "proficiency" in Russian is a great mystery than if it's not, I would note the following: 1. Karl Marx, a native German who lived most of his adult life in England, taught himself Spanish, Italian, Dutch, Scandinavian, Russian, and English. When his writings became popular in Russia, he taught himself Russian in a period of approximately 6 months, primarily by reading Russian newspapers, at a level sufficient to correspond with Russian intellectuals. 2. Russian is indeed a difficult language. However, every single letter in every single word is pronounced. With my truly minimal command of Russian, I can make a passable attempt at pronouncing any Russian word even if I have no idea what it means. My Russian wife, on the other hand, has a hell of a time with English words even when she knows what they mean. 3. When I first visited Belarus, my wife's relatives and friends were astounded at my "native" pronunciation and ability to follow at least minimal conversations. Partly it was because I was able to trill my r's better than most Russians because I grew up saying words like "burrito" and "senorita." Mostly, however, it was because I had spent several months listening to the Pimsleur Russian language CDs through Level 3. Pimsleur is premised on the notion that most of our interactions with others depend on about 800 words. If you learn those 800 words and some rudiments of grammar, you're going to be able to function at some minimal level within a culture. 4. Most telling to me: My wife is a native Russian speaker. She spoke nothing but Russian from 1954 to 2008. She is a graduate of the university in Minsk and held an administrative position in the city government. I have had her read all of the samples of LHO's Russian writing I could find, as recently as this morning. She LAUGHS OUT LOUD at the notion that anyone could think these show proficiency in Russian. She says they are almost unintelligible and typical of an American who has no real understanding of the language; the mistakes are very basic. She assures me that if I had spent any time at all immersed in the language in Minsk, I would do far better. 5. When my wife arrived in America at age 54, she knew no more than ten words of English. Solely through self-study and immersion in the culture, no formal training whatsoever, she now shops at Safeway and Walmart, is a naturalized citizen, and carries on long conversations with our friends. I am not saying LHO's Russian abilities are not worthy of investigation. Particularly striking are the discrepancies between those who thought he was a raw beginner and those who thought he was quite proficient (in speaking anyway). I had some incidents myself that could explain this, but I won't bore you with them. My point is, it appears to me that LHO's "proficiency" is being elevated to a greater mystery than it actually is because (1) that's just more fun, and (2) a greater mystery dovetails with the Harvey & Lee theory.
  5. The Finger Finally Points to Pentagon Chief Lemnitzer

    Well, I don't know ... I'm no Operation Northwoods expert, although I did read the Wikipedia article and sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Certainly what was proposed was at a level of Dr. Strangelove lunacy. Once the plan was vetoed by JFK, how much of a stretch would it have been for someone to suggest "Hey, you know what would be the ultimate Operation Northwoods event?" Certainly the scenario has all the elements: "the Cuban connection" that I feel sure underlies the assassination regardless of whether one is a Lone Nutter, a Small Scale Conspiracy Theorist or a Grand Scale Conspiracy Theorist ... a plan that from the get-go involved some extreme violence and wild "out of the box" thinking (to put it mildly) ... and military characters at the highest level who were furious at JFK and capable of accomplishing pretty much anything they wanted to accomplish. The problem I always have with anything bigger than a Small Scale Conspiracy is: How did an unlikely character like LHO become part of it? I could easily see a small anti-Castro group (perhaps involving rogue military or CIA participants) deciding after LHO returned from Russia that "this guy is right out of central casting to serve as the perfect patsy for shifting suspicion to Castro or at least pro-Castro forces," but I have difficulty seeing any grand, high-level conspiracy thinking it needed someone like LHO (unless, as Grand Scale Conspiracy Theorists always do, you reinvent LHO as someone much more mysterious and significant than I believe the evidence will support). If the assassination had been put in motion by someone of the level of Gen. Lymnitzer with all his military and ex-military connections, would involving a character like LHO and his Mannlicher-Carcano have been worth the risk of whatever purpose it served? Surely Operation Northwoods itself would have involved planted evidence pointing toward Castro that was a lot more sophisticated, reliable and compelling than LHO and his non-trusty Carcano.
  6. Anatomy Of Lee Harvey Oswald's Interrogations

    I scrolled through all 308 pages of the PDF, and it is certainly a gold mine of information. All of the incredible confusion, chaos, sloppiness and after-the-fact CYA scrambling strike me as exactly what I would expect if a Presidential visit had suddenly become a Presidential assassination, compounded by the murder of a DPD officer - and exactly what I would not expect if this had been any sort of organized conspiracy. One aspect of the interrogation that recently struck me was an interview of Houston Post reporter Lonnie Hudkins that was included in the excellent PBS Frontline documentary "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?" Hudkins emphasized that LHO was unnaturally calm and unruffled, completely unfazed by his circumstances - precisely as Baker and Truly reported LHO as being during the lunchroom encounter. There, I believe, might be a much bigger clue than the confusion, chaos, sloppiness and after-the-fact CYA scrambling of the interrogation. (A bigger clue to exactly what I can't say, but preternatural calm in those circumstances strikes me as impossible.)
  7. Oswald Leaving TSBD?

    Where did the camera go? My understanding is that no camera resembling the one you're describing was found by the police in Oswald's room or at the Paine house and that the mysterious Imperial Reflex surfaced in the hands of Robert Oswald after supposedly having been overlooked or ignored by the police when they searched the Paine house. I think it's entirely possible that PM (or PW, as the case may be) was holding a camera, but doesn't that point strongly AWAY from PM being LHO?
  8. The Umbrella Man Feature Film

    Sorry to intrude since I'm not really into the assassination these days, but what a great video. I think Tink Thompson has it exactly right - not just about Umbrella Man but about the entire "quantum dimension" that historical events of this magnitude seem to have. I might phrase it that they serve as a kind of Rorschach test. The events of 9-11 are another perfect example. On the other hand, I do have friends whose views I respect who believe there is an actual "quantum dimension" to events of this magnitude - i.e., that they do not simply occur in history the way a fender-bender does but actually have a deeper underlying meaning and significance and are meant (by whom?) to speak to us at a deeper level than the events themselves. The notion that any conceivable conspiracy would have included the one man in the entire crowd with an umbrella, prominently snapping it open and shut, and then that man years later could come up with no more plausible explanation than the Neville Chamberlain one ... well, I chuckle along with the Tinkster.
  9. To the extent it was being characterized as a "bank endorsement," yes, that would be incorrect. However, I don't believe, for the reasons stated above, that there was any need for a Federal Reserve member bank like the First National Bank of Chicago to put ANYTHING on the Klein's PMO before packaging it as a cash item and transmitting it to the regional Federal Reserve bank in Chicago. These were both banks within the SAME SYSTEM that was acting as the COLLECTION AGENT for the Postal Service. As I recall, Hank's point - that I do believe is legitimate and with which I would agree - was that if there WERE any need for First National Bank of Chicago to show that it had paid the Klein's PMO, the "Pay to the order" stamp would have sufficed for this purpose. The way the system worked, I believe, made any such indication unnecessary. If a PMO was being transmitted to a regional Federal Reserve bank by a Federal Reserve member bank, then BY DEFINITION that member bank had paid (or accepted for deposit) the PMO. If the PMO had been paid by a non-member bank, it would not find its way to the regional Federal Reserve bank through a local member bank like the First National Bank of Chicago but through a designated clearinghouse bank. Over and out - and I do mean "OVER" and I do mean "OUT."
  10. Micah, you are being lured deeper and deeper down a rabbit hole by people who (1) have reasons for wishing to keep the Klein's PMO a mystery and (2) don't know what they are talking about. I am no longer active on this silly forum, but I have been a lawyer for 35+ years, do know how to read federal statutes and regulations, and do at least have some idea what I am talking about. 1. Start with the File Locator Number (FLN), which no CT loon had even addressed before I identified what it was in a mere two hours of research on Google. (Let me repeat that: In the DECADES that the Klein's PMO had been debated, no one had even discussed what those rather prominent numbers across the top of the PMO might be!) The FLN is the number assigned when a PMO makes its way completely through the payment/collection cycle and is put into storage at the Federal Records Center, where it is retained for a period in case the Postal Service raises questions about it and wishes to examine it (or needs it for evidence in a court case). The FLN allows the PMO to be easily located, as this one was after the assassination. The fact that the Klein's PMO bears a FLN is a huge problem for the CT loons because IT IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THE KLEIN'S PMO MADE IT ENTIRELY THROUGH THE PAYMENT/COLLECTION CYCLE. 2. John Armstrong started all the silliness about the Klein's PMO not having the required bank endorsements. In Harvey and Lee, he cited to a bank official at the First National Bank of Chicago (named Wilmouth, as I recall) who supposedly said this. I exposed that the citations were FICTITIOUS. The bank official never said anything about bank endorsements. Armstrong's fiction became CT "gospel" and has been repeated \throughout the conspiracy literature, apparently without any of these "experts" bothering to check Armstrong's footnotes as I did. When I pointed out that Armstrong's citations were fictitious, which you can easily confirm for yourself, the non-response was deafening. 3. When you put 1 and 2 together, I don't believe there is much need for further discussion about the authenticity of the Klein's PMO. But I will persevere for your benefit ... 4. Under the federal regulations of the time, a PMO could have ONLY ONE ENDORSEMENT. That was by the payee, in this case Klein's. The "Pay to the order of" stamp on the back of the PMO is Klein's endorsement. People who insist the Klein's PMO should have "bank endorsements" merely reveal their ignorance. The federal regulations also stated that "bank stamps" were not deemed endorsements, which logically raises the question "What is a bank stamp, and should the Klein's PMO have had one or more bank stamps?" 5. The Federal Reserve is a BANKING SYSTEM with a central bank, 12 regional banks, and many member banks. Most banks are members of the Federal Reserve system, but there can be non-member banks. The First National Bank of Chicago was a member bank. 6. Insofar as PMOs are concerned, the Federal Reserve acts as the COLLECTION AGENT for the Postal Service under an agreement with the Postmaster General. In banking terminology, the Postal Service is deemed to be the "paying bank" for PMOs, while the Federal Reserve is merely a collection agent that does the processing and transmittal to the Federal Records Center. (The bank that accepts a PMO for deposit - in this case the First National Bank of Chicago - is the "depository bank." If Klein's had deposited a check written on an account at the Bank of America, BOA would be the "paying bank.") 7. Under the Federal Reserve regulations, PMOs are treated as "cash items." This is relevant to how they are packaged and transmitted from member banks to the Federal Reserve regional and central banks. They are treated like government checks and food stamps, with a minimum of processing since there is seldom serious concern about their authenticity. 8. I believe that when a PMO was deposited by a payee (such as Klein's) at a bank that was a member of the Federal Reserve system (such as First National Bank of Chicago), the depository bank simply packaged the PMO as a cash item and transmitted it to its Federal Reserve regional bank (in this case the one in Chicago). There was no need for a Federal Reserve member bank to "endorse" (i.e., stamp) the PMO - the member bank was simply transmitting the PMO to its regional Federal Reserve bank. Nor was there any need for the regional Federal Reserve bank to "endorse" (i.e., stamp) the PMO when it transmitted the PMO to the central Federal Reserve bank. All banks in the chain were part of the Federal Reserve system, which was simply acting as a collection agent for the Postal Service. 9. The Postal Service, of course, had received its money when the initial buyer of the PMO purchased it. The point of the collection process was merely for the depository bank that had accepted and paid the money order to be reimbursed from the Postal Service's account with the Treasury Department. Getting the PMO into the Federal Reserve system is what ensured that this would be done. The Federal Reserve regulations made clear that the Federal Reserve would not become involved in disputes as to whether a PMO had been stolen or had other issues. The Federal Reserve was simply acting as a collection agent. If an issue later arose, it was up to the Postal Service to retrieve the PMO from the Federal Records Center and deal with the depository bank (if necessary) and the person who had stolen or forged the PMO. 10. So where do bank stamps fit into this? I found a federal court case that I believe explains this. PMOs were sometimes deposited or cashed at banks that were NOT members of the Federal Reserve system. In order for the collection process to work, the PMO had to get into the Federal Reserve system. This was done by the non-member bank sending the PMO to a designated "clearinghouse" bank, which then got the PMO into the Federal Reserve system. It is the non-member bank and possibly the clearinghouse bank that I believe would have been required to stamp a PMO in order to establish the chain of payment from the initial deposit with the non-member bank. All the talk of "missing bank endorsements" on the Klein's PMO is just nonsense by people who don't know what they are talking about and are determined to perpetuate a mystery that was put to rest by items 1 and 2 above. Sandy's post immediately above is just nonsense from a layman who deludes himself that he can interpret federal regulations. If nothing else, my participation in this discussion was an eye-opening, eye-popping lesson for me about how the CT loons operate. You literally cannot have a rational discussion with these folks. There may be some aspects of the Kennedy assassination that are genuinely puzzling and worth pursuing, but this isn't one of them. If you insist on allowing yourself to be lured ever-deeper down this rabbit hole to nowhere, I can only say: YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
  11. Infiltration of this forum

    Because I am exceedingly kind and patient (as lawyers go), I will kindly and patiently point out the fuzziness in your thinking: The question is not whether I "believe" abortion is murder or you "believe" abortion is not murder. The question is, "What is abortion? Is it more like murder, or is it more like getting a nose job? Should society outlaw, restrict or tolerate it?" If you premeditate the killing of your grandmother, whether you "believe" it is murder or just good clean fun is irrelevant. Those who enact the laws have defined it as murder, and this happens to accord both with Christian doctrine and with the thinking of 99.9% of sane people of all beliefs. Probably 99% of all laws "impose beliefs" on segments of society that disagree with them. I firmly believe I should be able to ride my Yahama FJR1300 150 miles an hour whenever I think it's safe to do so, but the Motorcycle Unbelievers who wrote the un-American traffic laws disagree. The Man-Boy Love Society firmly believes sex between adults and children is healthy for children, but the Pedophilia Unbelievers who wrote the un-American molestation laws disagree. See how long that lasts. So when the Supreme Court decides abortion is murder, or at least that it may be flatly prohibited at the State level, will this be "American" or "Un-American"? Will it be Un-American because President Trump has appointed Justices who happen to think this way? Will you change your views on abortion because "the Supreme Court has decided otherwise"? I prefer to base my thinking on less shifting sand than "what the Supreme Court has decided" at any given point in time. Are you familiar at all with the history of Supreme Court rulings, with the rather unbelievable things the Wise Justices have decided over the years - even long before the typical Justice was a partisan political hack and the Court had become the Unelected 5-4 Legislature it now has? I do? Remind me again, what are those views I am imposing? What, I am not entitled to express opposing views "if the Supreme Court has decided otherwise"? Gee, you would have made a good little Nazi or Stalinist, wouldn't you? I believe the pro-abortion position is literally evil - not because "God has said so," but for precisely the same reasons I believe the Holocaust was literally evil - and I am entitled to work my hardest both to change minds and to change the laws. That is what America is all about. I would suggest it is you who "don't seem to get it." Actually, more than 50% of Americans favor greater restrictions on abortion - so why is their position "Fascist" while the pro-abortion position is not? The fact that my position on abortion happens to square with mainstream Christian doctrine may irk the hell out of you, but it does not make the position any less valid. To repeat: The question is not whether I, a Christian, "believes" abortion is murder or your Aunt Hatty, a New Atheist, "believes" abortion is not murder. The question is, "What is abortion? Is it more like murder, or is it more like getting a nose job? Should society outlaw or restrict it, or should society tolerate or even encourage it?" I believe this is what those of us in the legal profession refer to as a non sequitur. I don't care if a woman rips out her reproductive organs with her bare hands if it makes her happy. I don't care if a woman chooses never to have children if it makes her happy. But when she does manage to get herself pregnant despite the plethora of ways society affords her to avoid becoming pregnant, then I do firmly believe the rights of the incipient human being she has brought into existence trump (or Trump, if you will) any right she might think she has to terminate said incipient human merely being because she finds the pregnancy inconvenient. I really don't think you're advertising your critical thinking skills here, Cliffaroo, I'd stick to that "weaponized fact of conspiracy."
  12. Infiltration of this forum

    See, that's why the world needs lawyers who can actually think through issues: I could be a raving New Atheist who believes God is a dangerous fantasy yet still believe abortion is murder. Whatever your notion of the "separation of Church and State" may be, it does not mandate a pro-abortion perspective, as you seem to believe it does. Is this an example of your critical thinking skills? Some who claim to be Christians support abortion. Most do not. Filtering my religious beliefs entirely out of the equation, as I am perfectly capable of doing, I still come down on the side that believes the rights of the incipient human being far outweigh, by several magnitudes, any right of the mother to terminate the incipient human being she has brought into existence. I still come down on the side that believes abortion is murder and should not be tolerated in a society that at least wants to pretend it is civilized and enlightened. Ta-ta for now.
  13. Infiltration of this forum

  14. Infiltration of this forum

    No, I'm one of those "large God" guys who believes abortion is murder.
×