Jump to content
The Education Forum

Lance Payette

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lance Payette

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 03/03/1950

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Lance Payette

    One Question re: Two Oswalds

    Sandy, for God's sake, give it a rest. You are so far off topic for this thread that my head is spinning. Food stamp coupons and assorted other items are likewise cash items that are processed through the Federal Reserve - do you think they require bank endorsements? The portion of the circular you have quoted is simply over-inclusive, which is not uncommon. In practice, everyone would know that items which by their nature obviously do not require bank endorsements need not be endorsed. As I pointed out to you previously, by regulation a postal money order can have only one endorsement; what we are really talking about are bank stamps, which are not deemed endorsements and which I do not believe are required when a Federal Reserve member bank simply pays a money order and forwards it through the Federal Reserve system for reimbursement. You are making a common layman's mistake of thinking you understand how to read statutes and regulations and coming up with an interpretation whereby 2 + 2 = 14. I cannot tell you how many times (quite a few) that I, AS A HIGHLY EXPERIENCED LAWYER, have very carefully analyzed a set of statutes and regulations and determined what I was CERTAIN needed to be done - only to have those at the agency smile and say, "Yeah, we know that's what it says, but that's not the way it works in practice. Here's what you actually have to do." End of discussion - I am not going to continue to humor you. When I say "I believe" I mean "I believe as an experienced (now retired) lawyer who knows how to read statutes and regulations, understands the basics of commercial paper, has represented and sued banks, and has spent an inordinate amount of time researching this specific issue." This does not mean I am infallible - as stated above, real-world practices often turn out to be quite different from my best legal conclusions - but it likewise does not mean my belief is on a par with that of a layman named Sandy Larsen who is determined for some reason to go down with the Good Ship Harvey and Lee. As every lawyer (and judge) knows, the Case From Hell is one where your opponent is a pro se character who thinks he's smarter than the lawyers and knows how to read and apply cases, statutes and regulations. By the way, whatever happened to Lee and Marguerite II? Is that relevant to this thread anymore?
  2. Lance Payette

    Plot or Blot?

    Powell Calls His U.N. Speech a Lasting Blot on His Record https://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/politics/powell-calls-his-un-speech-a-lasting-blot-on-his-record.html Very common terminology. No mystery at all, even if you happen to think "plot" would be equally appropriate.
  3. Sandy, I don't know if you are just having a bad day or what, but is the above what you are calling (on another thread) my "concession" that your position is correct? HUH??? I am equally puzzled by your reference to my "changing story" - what is that even supposed to mean? I researched the bank endorsement issue along with everyone else beginning at square one. At the outset, I was entirely open to the position that bank endorsements were in fact required. As I educated myself via some pretty intensive research, I realized that (1) they are not and (2) your efforts are a layman's efforts to prop up a dead theory. If you think I should somehow be embarrassed by the post you have quoted - well, be my guest, but I stand by it in its entirety. (I am somewhat embarrassed by the tone, which is not consistent with the standards of the Kinder and Gentler Forum to which everyone is at least pretending to ascribe.) Please, enlighten me as to what you think you have accomplished by reviving this tedious thread. EDIT: Oh, I see, my "changing story" is that I previously said I "believe" and I today said I had "demonstrated." Is that it? Goodness, you are having a bad day. What you are highlighting is what is known as a distinction without a difference. My new position, as of 6:35 p.m. MST is that "I believe I have demonstrated" - will that work for you? Because of my confidence in my position, I communicated with the postal museum at the Smithsonian Institution and a couple of philatelic societies that I thought might have expertise in postal money orders. Alas, no one will touch the JFK cesspool with a ten-foot pole. And, as with the educational records issue, you were so "confident" (uh huh) of the self-evident correctness of your position that you did ... NOTHING.
  4. Lance Payette

    One Question re: Two Oswalds

    I turned up gems such as this (from the Deep Politics forum): Donald O. Norton of Stowe, Ohio was born in 1949 -- which makes him10 years younger than Lee Oswald. And, it would have made him 14in 1963. That would seem to rule out Norton being the birth Oswald,right?Hmmmmmm, well no, not exactly. Suppose for a moment that aDonald O. Norton was born in 1949 in Stowe, Ohio in a dysfunctionalfamily. He went to school there, and he had a real birth certificate anda real Social Security #. Then something happened -- perhaps hewas killed or MIA in Viet Nam.If after Lee Oswald killed Tippit, he was to be given a new identity(name, birth certificate, SS#, etc) rather than given him a bogus,made up identity what if they gave him Donald O. Norton's ID? All"they" would need to do was obscure the details of Norton's death.Few researchers, it seems, are able to grasp this possibility. "Suppose" and "perhaps" and "possibilities that few researchers are able to grasp" are the lifeblood of fringe conspiracy theories. I will acknowledge that Armstrong did do some investigation into the possibility that Norton was "Lee" (or "Lee" was Norton or however it was supposed to have worked). However, this was not the response I received when I originally posed the same question Mark has posed.
  5. Lance Payette

    One Question re: Two Oswalds

    But no cleaning up beforehand, thereby leaving the 8,000 "clues" on which Armstrong bases his theory? Odd, huh? Those wacky conspirators - geniuses on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, the Three Stooges on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. No, I came up with a plethora of federal regulations, Federal Reserve bulletins and case law by which I, as a practicing lawyer for 35 years, demonstrated that endorsements would not appear on a 1963 money order deposited in a bank that was a member of the Federal Reserve system. You, as a pretend lawyer and H&L apologist, came up with a convoluted interpretation that you insist is preferable to mine. To paraphrase Mark Twain, the reports of my concession have been greatly exaggerated. Where in the world did you get that idea? I left you and anyone who agrees with you with a challenge to contact state and local educational officials in NY and LA and see if they agree those records show simultaneous attendance at those two schools. Those "incapable of reading charts" include Greg Parker, Little Old Lance and a veritable army of folks. Before declaring victory, contact those state and local educational officials - I triple dog dare you.
  6. Lance Payette

    One Question re: Two Oswalds

    Really? Remind me again: You did WHAT to determine whether the Mystery Money Order really should have had bank endorsements? I at least contacted the postal museum at the Smithsonian Institution, and you did WHAT? And WHO discovered the File Locator Number that pretty well ended the Money Order Mystery? WHO discovered that Armstrong's citations to Wilmouth's supposed testimony concerning the necessity for bank endorsements were completely bogus, provoking nothing but silence from Armstrong and his minions? Remind me again: You did WHAT to determine whether the P.S. 44 / Beauregard Junior High Educational Records Mystery really exists or is easily explained by state and local educational officials in NY and LA? And WHO established (with Tracy) that the Oswald Birth Certificate Mystery was no mystery at all? WHO quickly established that the Mystery of the 5'7" Oswald Photo was no mystery at all because the measuring stick was a surveyor's rod? Lest anyone think I am tooting my own horn, precisely the opposite is true: Every time I bother to look into one of Armstrong's claims, which is seldom, it just doesn't hold up. Far from requiring expertise, this is child's play. If one took the same microscope to Armstrong's claims that the H&L supporters take to the "evidence," I have a pretty good idea of what the result would be. Remind me again: WHAT was "mystery" we supposedly debated that I supposedly "conceded"? I will certainly acknowledge error when I commit one, but I am not recalling whatever you're talking about. I did not dive into the Oswald's Teeth debate because, inasmuch as medical experts confirmed the identify of the corpse after the exhumation, I really don't care if one of his teeth had a half-carat diamond implant it was not "supposed" to have.
  7. Lance Payette

    Titovets vs Armstrong

    As someone with a Russian wife who has floundered around in the Russian language for a decade, I will say again (based largely on personal experience): The minimal level of Russian it takes to impress one's fellow Americans that you "really know Russian," which I personally acquired in about six months of self-study, is ... ABOUT THE SAME as the minimal level of Russian it takes to impress Russians that you "really know Russian" (at least in comparison to 99% of the Americans they meet) if you are careful to stick to what you do know and just nod and smile the rest of the time, which in turn is ... ABOUT THE SAME as the minimal level of Russian it takes to convince a Russian that you "have no understanding of Russian at all" if you are forced to engage in a rapid-fire conversation on a substantive topic. The level of Russian it takes to impress an American who himself has a deep knowledge of the language that you know Russian "well enough to function as an interpreter" is quite different but not surprising after you have been completely immersed in the language and culture for 2+ years. On the flip side of this, my wife literally didn't know ten words of English when she arrived in 2008 at the age of 54 - but now, with no formal language training whatsoever, she is a 75% fluent U.S. citizen. I take Gregory's endorsement of LHO as an interpreter with a grain of salt, but I see NOTHING in the widely varying reports of LHO's Russian proficiency to raise any huge red flags. The author of this excellent site, http://www.russianbooks.org/oswald-in-russia.htm, told me in an email that he went to Minsk convinced he would document a connection between LHO and American intelligence. Like everyone I know who has gone to Minsk under the same illusion, he came away convinced the Warren Commission basically got things right. As someone who has been to Minsk several times, I can tell you the notion that LHO was a CIA operative as opposed to merely a mixed-up goofball will be greeted with horse laughs by anyone who had any knowledge of him during that era. But, please, dream on ...
  8. Lance Payette

    One Question re: Two Oswalds

    There seems to be an assumption that I am uninformed about the "two Oswalds" theory (or theories). I have dutifully read and purchased Harvey & Lee, exposed a number of outright errors in it (without having any sort of mission or agenda to do so), spent a lot more time than most people looking at the John Armstrong Collection at Baylor University, and explored in depth some of the more puzzling incidents (such as the Bolton Ford incident). Even when wearing my Lone Nut beanie, I acknowledge the existence of a number of oddities. But as I said on another thread, this would be true if my own educational, medical and employment records were examined with the same microscope we apply to LHO's - due in no small part to confusion and dissembling on my own part, since my own childhood was at least as chaotic as LHO's. I have seen nothing, however, that would even vaguely lead me in the direction of Harvey & Lee, or really even to a firm conclusion that some individual or individuals were posing as LHO. Everything is either an invented "mystery" of the sort in which Sandy deals or an unwarranted inference and huge leap of logic based on some dubious "fact." If one attempts to debate with a Flat Earther, as I actually have, one finds that there are some facts that mesh as well with a flat earth as with a spherical one; I can acknowledge this, but the Flat Earthers cannot acknowledge the overwhelming evidence the earth is spherical. I think the original post asked a relevant question, but the predictable response is to sidetrack the discussion with "Forget about that - look at this other stuff that shows H&L isn't as silly as you'd like to think!" Armstrong believes "Lee" and "fake Marguerite" survived the assassination, but has NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in attempting to determine what became of them? Really, after delving into the minutiae of their pre-assassination lives to the extent reflected in Harvey & Lee? At least on the surface, that suggests to me: You have no interest in what became of them because you know damn well they never existed. Concerning tax returns, the ARRB stated: To shed light on questions regarding Lee Harvey Oswald's employment history and sources of income, the Review Board sought to inspect and publicly release Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Social Security Administration (SSA) records on Oswald. Although the Review Board staff did review IRS and SSA records, Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code prohibits the disclosure of tax return information, and section 11(a) of the JFK Act explicitly preserves the confidentiality of tax return information. Thus, the Review Board unfortunately could not open Lee Harvey Oswald's tax returns. The next chapter of this report explains, in the IRS compliance section, the mechanics of the Review Board's and the IRS's efforts to release this information. In a letter to Lee Rankin dated 1-6-1964 and found in Box 8, Notebook 1C of the Armstrong Collection, the author stated: Also enclosed are Photostats of income tax returns filed by Marguerite C. Oswald for the years 1956 through 1962 and Photostats of tax returns filed by Robert L. Oswald for the same period together with Photostats of pertinent communications and attachments to the returns. If the returns are not yet publicly available to the extent conspiracy theorists might like, is there any reason at all to suspect the explanation is anything deep, dark and nefarious? More to the point, what efforts have been undertaken to obtain access to the returns? It seems that every time Armstrong and the H&L enthusiasts posit some deep, dark mystery (e.g. the "missing endorsements" on the money order for the rifle, the educational records "proving" LHO was in two junior high schools at the same time), they are puzzlingly unwilling to undertake the sort of rudimentary efforts that might expose the "mystery" as not being so deep and dark after all. Gee, I wonder why that might be? There is a "Gee, whiz, LOOK AT THIS!!!" aspect to the H&L "research" that one simply does not find in serious research.
  9. Lance Payette

    Gaddafi says Israel involved in JFK assassination

    Obviously, he had never read Harvey & Lee.
  10. Lance Payette

    One Question re: Two Oswalds

    I asked that question a long time ago, because I was disappointed at the way Harvey & Lee simply ended as though it had hit a brick wall, with seemingly no interest on the part of Armstrong as to what had happened to Lee or his fake mother. Having traced the entire pre-assassination history of "Lee" and fake mama, would it not be the most compelling proof of Armstrong's theory if "Lee" could be identified post-assassination? The "answer," as I recall, was that Armstrong had no interest in anything post-assassination. The actual answer, of course, is that there is no "Lee" and never was, something that I believe all but the most certifiably wacked-out of the H&L cult know. It's a game - let's pretend we believe the earth is flat and have some fun with it.
  11. Lance Payette

    Harvey Lee Oswald

    FWIW, I found this in an introduction to one of Solzhenitsyn’s books: “Basically, the word ‘comrade’ was used very much like an English speaker would use ‘Mr.’ or ‘Mrs.’ in everyday speech. It can also be used in conjunction with a person’s rank or position. Hence, a Russian might hail a doctor as ‘Comrade Doctor.” The word ‘citizen’ was used less than ‘comrade’ as a form of address, but it was always used in certain formal situations, such as in the courtroom. People who found themselves in the dock were not accorded the honour of being called ‘comrade.’" My wife confirmed that the word for citizen - "grazh-DA-neen" - is a more formal and less "friendly" term than the word translated as comrade. She pointed out that it is used indiscriminately. If American Lance were walking down the street and a police officer wanted to stop him, the officer would shout "Stop, citizen!" She also pointed out that in the Soviet system there was no word used in the way that we use Mr., Mrs., sir or madam. She said this led to very awkward situations in addressing someone you didn't know - a clerk in a store, for example. To just say "Hey, you!" was considered rude, so "citizen" served in this context as well. Further support that the references to “citizen Oswald” were simply bureaucratese. I seriously doubt the author was thinking in terms of “Is this unsatisfactory factory worker we are describing a bona fide citizen of the USSR?” As usual, Much Ado About Nothing.
  12. Lance Payette

    Harvey Lee Oswald

    I agree. For one thing, "Lee" "Harvey" and "Oswald" are all potential first names - quite easy to transpose, even for an American bureaucrat. For another, you'd have to be familiar with Russian culture to realize how puzzling non-Russian names can be to them. Many American/English names do have Russian counterparts, but neither Lee, Harvey nor Oswald do. I recall reading that LHO was originally dubbed Alik by Rima because Lee sounded Chinese and was likely to confuse the Russians. Lastly, we have LHO's propensity to play games with his name even when this was completely unnecessary (e.g., "O. H. Lee" at the Dallas rooming house). As Marina said, he simply enjoyed lying and game-playing even when it served no purpose. I think it is highly likely that the answer to the Harvey Lee Oswald "mystery" is to be found in some combination of these factors. As for the "citizen" reference, this strikes me as a perfect example of Conspiracy Logic. In any other context, we would assume that a reference to "citizen Oswald" was simply the formalistic bureaucratic equivalent of "Comrade Oswald" or "Mr. Oswald" or "Minsk resident Oswald" - i.e., that it was simply bureaucratic jargon and had no legal significance whatsoever. (FYI, it is somewhat humorous that the State Department translation uses the term comrade. When my wife first arrived, I would jokingly use the term and get blank stares from her. She assures me no Russian would react to the term comrade unless he had been watching a lot of American movies, The actual term - roughly "tah-VAR-ish" - is more like "friend," but with a connotation suggesting "fellow revolutionary.") But Conspiracy Logic demands that there can never be a simple human error or mere sloppiness where the JFK assassination is concerned. What would be insignificant in any other context must have massive significance and deepen the Mystery that we prefer. Ergo, this single reference to "citizen" means that whoever wrote it Knew Something and calls into doubt the otherwise irrefutable reality that LHO did not become a citizen of the USSR. If someone went through the educational records, medical records, resumes and job histories of Little Old Lance with the same electron microscope that Conspiracy Theorists apply to LHO, I guarantee you Little Old Lance would appear to be an exceedingly mysterious individual - and a lot of the "mystery" would be due to my own sloppiness, forgetfulness, dissembling and butt-covering.
  13. Lance Payette

    The Two Oswald Phenomena Explained

    There is always projection in two directions as well: The actual hard evidence is always projected into not being what it pretty clearly is. The gossip, innuendos, clerical mistakes, human errors and gaps in the evidence, on the other hand, are always projected into gospel truth that -voila! - supports Our Pet Theory. You can't trust the actual evidence, but you can trust the way we fill in the gaps. On the Bolton Ford incident, I would simply note: At least according to the FBI memorandum dated 11-25-63 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=47745#relPageId=56), Bolton Ford salesman Oscar Deslatte was in contact with the FBI by that date, a mere THREE DAYS after the assassination. The assassination was nearly THREE YEARS after the alleged incident. No trucks were sold. Do car salesmen typically remember non-sales THREE YEARS after the fact? Do car dealerships typically keep carbon copies of price quotes that do not result in sales for THREE YEARS? Does the price quotation reproduced by Jim look like a 1961-era, 3-year-old carbon copy? I don't remember carbon copies having that level of clarity. Deslatte could not remember anything about either "Joseph Moore" or "Oswald." He could not identify a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald as anyone he had ever seen. Deslatte recalled only the name "Oswald" - "no first name given." How many Oswalds lived in Louisiana at that time? Was any Oswald associated with the Friends of Democratic Cuba? Is it plausible that Deslatte immediately made a connection between the assassination of JFK and a three-year-old non-sale and felt compelled to immediately call the FBI? Isn't that more than a bit odd? The MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more detailed information and identification of "Oswald" by Bolton Ford manager Fred Sewell comes out of the 1967 Garrison investigation. 'Nuff said? Where was Sewell when Deslatte was contacting the FBI? Why didn't he refresh Deslatte's memory at the time with all of his 1967 revelations? If the name "Lee Oswald" was given, as Sewell said, why did Deslatte write only "Oswald" on the price quotation when he had written "Joseph Moore's" full name? Given how auto sales transactions work, wouldn't one expect salesman Deslatte's recollections three years after the fact to be more vivid and detailed than manager Sewell's six years after the fact? I assume the Harvey and Lee theorists posit that the FBI memorandum is a fabrication, part of the conspiracy? If so, what purpose would it have served? If the conspiracy were intended to create the appearance of one Oswald when there were in fact two, what purpose would it have served to highlight one "Oswald" as being associated with an anti-Castro organization at Bolton Ford when the whole world knew the other "Oswald" was in Minsk as a communist sympathizer at the very same time? Instead of being clever conspiratorial thinking, doesn't this seem ... rather stupid and clumsy? Is it possible the FBI, the Warren Commission and the HSCA gave short shrift to the Bolton Ford incident because they readily concluded it was a dead end for some or all of the above reasons? It seems to me this is merely yet another example of Fundamentalist Zealot Conspiracy Thinking (a phrase I use, of course, with the deepest respect). What is essentially nothing becomes - voila! - the smoking gun. As Bugliosi (boo! hiss!) pointed out, and as I have experienced myself during my legal career, the wildest assortment of characters with the wildest assortment of tales come out of the woodwork following a high-profile incident. It's human nature. Without a much more solid understanding than we will ever have now, incidents like Bolton Ford are little more than curiosities.
  14. Lance Payette

    Moderators - please teach how to ignore

    On other forums I've found that "Ignore" works better in theory than in reality. You end up seeing the Ignored poster's posts when someone you don't Ignore quotes them, and if you have more than one person on Ignore the threads often become almost unintelligible because of all the gaps. I gave up on Ignore for those reasons, but maybe you'll have better luck here.
  15. Lance Payette

    The Future of the Education Forum

    The problem with that is, the utter disdain has already been well-established. The discussion as to whether "language matters" would be more relevant if one were starting from scratch. When one Senator whom everyone knows despises another Senator rises and says "If I may interrupt my esteemed colleague ..." it's exactly like "With all due respect ..." Everyone knows he means "I can't take another second of this fool I completely despise ..." The real problem is not the language but the disdain. The disdain exists primarily, I believe, because the various JFK assassination theories, including the Lone Nut theory, have become fundamentalist religions, pure and simple. You are asking an assembly of fanatical Roman Catholics, Mormons, Southern Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses and Russian Orthodox to "play nice." Take my word for it, they don't and they never will. They might maintain a facade for some short period, but the differences and disdain are too deep to keep a lid on for long. When you then factor in that the "assembly" we're talking about is an internet forum, I do not believe any solution will be anything more than a very short-term one. I pointed out to James that I participate on a Christian site where the membership is quite small, everyone theoretically is a Christian and 97% of them are very conservative Protestants, and the discussions are very closely moderated - yet it is the inevitable bloodbath of feuds, insults, warnings, closed threads, banned members and all the rest. So good luck here.