Jump to content
The Education Forum
Jim Hargrove

John Armstrong blasts the mail order rifle “evidence”

Recommended Posts

It's time for another Money Order Summary:

...Lee Oswald's writing is on the money order.

...All of the proper post office stamps are on the M.O.

...A Klein's stamp is on the M.O.

...A File Locator Number is on the M.O. (indicating it made it to the FRB).

...The M.O. was found at the Federal Records Center in Alexandria (exactly where it should have been located after proper processing).

...The "bleed-thru" on the M.O. has been explained (see Cadigan Exhibit No. 11).

...Waldman No. 7 is consistent in EVERY way with all other documents relating to Oswald's rifle purchase.

With all of this in evidence, Jimmy D. thinks a trial judge would be rolling in his robes laughing within 15 minutes of the Hidell Postal Money Order being presented in court.

James DiEugenio, as usual, is nestled firmly and comfortably in his little fantasy world of wholesale fakery and forgery.

There is no bank stamp on the PMO. Add that to your Summary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And does the lack of a FNB stamp somehow UNDO all of those other items I just discussed?

I didn't say anything about removing your items.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And does the lack of a FNB stamp somehow UNDO all of those other items I just discussed?

I didn't say anything about removing your items.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is a perfect example of what I mean by Lance.

Come on, people, this is just silly. At least insofar as the money order is concerned, Armstrong and his sycophants are weaving a fantasy out of whole cloth.

I hate to tell you Lance, but you and DVP are the ones who weaved a fantasy.

You dreamed up a scenario in which PMO's were somehow segregated by the bank on site and bundled together so as to get around the fact that this particular PMO, which we call the Magic Money Order, has no evidence at all of going through the Federal Reserve System. Which it would have to do if it was genuine. (This parallels what DVP did with the handgun which he now tries to cover up with a 2011 reg which does not apply to post office boxes.)

Just in the interest of Non-Silliness, I would point out that: (1) In previous threads, we have noted that an FRB regulation stated that different types of cash items could be segregated if appropriate. As I recall, DVP suggested this possibility and I simply pointed out that it would have been permissible. However, whether the money order at issue was segregated became irrelevant when we realized that it bore a File Locator Number, the ultimate evidence of it "going through the Federal Reserve System." I suppose one could argue that my car being found in your garage tomorrow morning is no evidence that it was driven from my garage to yours during the night, but I believe most people would find this an unconvincing argument. However, if one is unalterably wedded to the theory that aliens from the Andromeda System teleported my car to your garage - well, then, of course, no evidence to the contrary can be allowed.

I do agree with DVP that the money order is an almost perfect illustration of the lengths that those who are wedded to a theory will go to preserve said theory.

Does anyone this side of Wonderland actually believe a money order was being found in Kansas City at virtually the same time that the one we know and love was being found in Washington? Why would the exhaustive Secret Service report dated two days later make no mention of this fact? Why would the discovery in Kansas City have been learned about by the Secret Service agent in Chicago during a phone conversation with the agent in Dallas, and why would the agent in Chicago have then telephoned the agent in Kansas City (who was the postal inspectors' contact in Kansas City) to advise him of the find? Why would the Justice Department (FBI) have sent a teletype the next day telling the offices in Chicago and Kansas City to discontinue their searches because the money order had been found in Washington? Oh, I forget - all of this was part of the "conspiracy," the mysterious subplot known in intelligence circles as "making the Kansas City money order disappear." Uh-huh. Yet Armstrong continues to beat this drum as though it had ominous implications, and the residents of Wonderland lap it up.

I think it's pretty obvious to the residents of Ontology Land that there is simply no point in even attempting to discuss these issues rationally. I'll have to give DVP credit - he's more dogged than I. The strategy of Wonderland, including Armstrong, seems to be to just keep shoveling the manure in hopes that the sheer volume will eventually bury all dissenting voices. Has anyone taken the couple of hours it takes to review the 139-page PDF I mentioned? My vast JFK research career has been focused on precisely four items: the Wilmouth (non-)statement, the File Locator Number, the federal regulations and FRB materials pertaining to postal money orders, and now the Kansas City (non-)money order. In each case, I have held Armstrong's work up to the light of day and been forced to conclude, to my sincere disappointment, "He's shoveling manure."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And does the lack of a FNB stamp somehow UNDO all of those other items I just discussed?

Lest we forget, the money order "lacks" a bank stamp only if it was required to have one. You could just as well add to your list that it "lacks" a Happy Face. Moreover, as Hank and I have suggested, it does have an endorsement satisfying the requirements of the regulations - the Klein's stamp stating pay to the order of the First National Bank. Moreover moreover, I believe we have made a convincing case that no bank stamps would be expected on a postal money order, apart from the Klein's stamp we see. I realize there is disagreement over the latter point, but surely there is no obligation to include as "missing" items that there is no compelling reason to think should be there at all. I am not going to rehash that which has been rehashed ad nauseam on other threads, but the regulation Sandy reads as absolutely requiring bank stamps on postal money orders simply does not; it can be read that way if one believes postal money orders had to be treated just like checks, just as Genesis can be read to say the earth is only 6,000 years old, but this is not the most plausible way to read or interpret it in context. Postal money orders were fundamentally different from checks in terms of what they were, the commercial concerns they presented, and the way they were processed; certainly, they could have been treated just like checks, requiring further indicia of payment by the First National Bank, the regional Federal Reserve Bank and the Treasury Department, but this would have been exalting form over substance and made no commercial sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just in the interest of Non-Silliness, I would point out that: (1) In previous threads, we have noted that an FRB regulation stated that different types of cash items could be segregated if appropriate. As I recall, DVP suggested this possibility and I simply pointed out that it would have been permissible. However, whether the money order at issue was segregated became irrelevant when we realized that it bore a File Locator Number, the ultimate evidence of it "going through the Federal Reserve System." I suppose one could argue that my car being found in your garage tomorrow morning is no evidence that it was driven from my garage to yours during the night, but I believe most people would find this an unconvincing argument. However, if one is unalterably wedded to the theory that aliens from the Andromeda System teleported my car to your garage - well, then, of course, no evidence to the contrary can be allowed.

I do agree with DVP that the money order is an almost perfect illustration of the lengths that those who are wedded to a theory will go to preserve said theory.

James,

Using Lance's line of reasoning, if you purchased a PMO and rubber stamped a File Locator Number on it, that would prove that it went through the Federal Reserve System.

The File Locator Number is an almost perfect illustration of the lengths that those who are wedded to a fallacious argument will go to preserve said fallacious argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James,

Using Lance's line of reasoning, if you purchased a PMO and rubber stamped a File Locator Number on it, that would prove that it went through the Federal Reserve System.

The File Locator Number is an almost perfect illustration of the lengths that those who are wedded to a fallacious argument will go to preserve said fallacious argument.

Oh, goodie, I'm striking some nerves!

If you rubber-stamped a File Locator Number, this would not be a File Locator Number because they are not rubber-stamped. To quote the seminal article by the Treasury official that started this discussion, which Little Old Me found via the esoteric research methodology known as Google, "A locator number is printed on each check, which is also incorporated into the tape record." Ergo, a rubber-stamped File Locator Number would be exposed as bogus in 3.2 seconds.

The money order at issue bore a valid, printed File Locator Number. It was readily located in the Federal Records Center, precisely where it should have been, by garden-variety employees using standard location techniques - i.e., by the File Locator Number. Try that with your rubber-stamped PMO.

If you folks don't realize arguments like this only make you look silly - well, carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And does the lack of a FNB stamp somehow UNDO all of those other items I just discussed?

Lest we forget, the money order "lacks" a bank stamp only if it was required to have one.

And the money order was required to have a bank stamp, according to FRB Operating Circular 4928. Read 'em and weep:

"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....

...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."

You could just as well add to your list that it "lacks" a Happy Face. Moreover, as Hank and I have suggested, it does have an endorsement satisfying the requirements of the regulations - the Klein's stamp stating pay to the order of the First National Bank.

Don't be ridiculous Lance. The presenting bank has to stamp it. Not only does that make a lot more sense, the regulation specifically states "All cash items should be endorsed .... to the order of the Federal Reserve Bank..." The Klein's stamp served to endorsed the PMO to the First National Bank of Chicago, not the FRB.

Geez Lance, doesn't this ever get embarrassing for you? Just give up already.

Moreover moreover, I believe we have made a convincing case that no bank stamps would be expected on a postal money order, apart from the Klein's stamp we see. I realize there is disagreement over the latter point, but surely there is no obligation to include as "missing" items that there is no compelling reason to think should be there at all. I am not going to rehash that which has been rehashed ad nauseam on other threads, but the regulation Sandy reads as absolutely requiring bank stamps on postal money orders simply does not;

The regulation is written in simple English Lance. Even a lawyer should be able to understand it. But then, I understand you need to maintain your theory at any cost. And make no mistake about it... it is a theory. You have nothing to back it up. Just wishful thinking with an attitude.

it can be read that way if one believes postal money orders had to be treated just like checks, just as Genesis can be read to say the earth is only 6,000 years old, but this is not the most plausible way to read or interpret it in context. Postal money orders were fundamentally different from checks in terms of what they were, the commercial concerns they presented, and the way they were processed; certainly, they could have been treated just like checks, requiring further indicia of payment by the First National Bank, the regional Federal Reserve Bank and the Treasury Department, but this would have been exalting form over substance and made no commercial sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you rubber-stamped a File Locator Number, this would not be a File Locator Number because they are not rubber-stamped. ... "A locator number is printed on each check...

Oh my gosh... if you can't figure this out...

Okay then, print the FLN. With a metal plate, not a rubber pad.

Do you think that makes it any more authentic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you rubber-stamped a File Locator Number, this would not be a File Locator Number because they are not rubber-stamped. ... "A locator number is printed on each check...

Oh my gosh... if you can't figure this out...

Okay then, print the FLN. With a metal plate, not a rubber pad.

Do you think that makes it any more authentic?

Only if the money order were subsequently located in a matter of minutes in the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia, using the machines and procedures by which previously processed postal money orders that had been assigned File Locator Numbers and placed into storage were routinely located. Your rubber-stamp example would be identified as bogus in seconds. A more convincing counterfeit of a File Locator Number would be exposed when it was discovered that no money order bearing that File Locator Number was in the Records Center, or that a different money order bearing that File Locator Number was actually in storage. What you fail to grasp is that the stamp of authenticity of this money order is that it bears a valid File Locator Number and that it was subsequently located in storage at the Federal Records Center using that number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me the discussion of the postal money order is a classic example of losing sight of the forest for the trees. If I were to prepare a "30,000-foot level" list to supplement DVP’s, I would say:

  • The President is assassinated, leading to a mad scramble on the part of multiple agencies, often working at cross-purposes, to identify who, what where, when and why. Can we even imagine how chaotic the 24 hours after the assassination must have been?
  • Based on incorrect information provided by Robert Wilmouth, the search for the money order initially focuses on Kansas City.
  • The FBI initially provides to postal authorities in Dallas an incorrect amount and date ($21.95, March 20) for the money order. Harry Holmes understandably reports that his employees can find no match. When the correct amount and date ($21.45, March 13 as the date of receipt by Klein’s) are provided, Holmes’ employees promptly locate the stub bearing the serial number of the money order and the sale date of March 12.
  • Holmes reports his findings to his higher-ups in Ft. Worth, who confirm that the money order should be in Washington, D.C.
  • The postal officials in Ft. Worth initiate a search for the money order in Washington. About an hour later, the Secret Service initiates an identical search in Washington. Once the machines are up and running, the money order is promptly located by Federal Records Center employees using the File Locator Number assigned to the money order when it arrived at the Records Center some seven months earlier.
  • The next day, FBI offices in Kansas City, Chicago and New York are told to call off their search for the money order, which has been located in Dallas.
  • Two days later, the Chief’s Office of the Secret Service in Washington issues an extremely detailed report as to how the money order was located, identifying the numerous individuals involved.
  • In all subsequent handling of the money order, whether by bank officials, investigative agencies, attorneys or the various assassination commissions, no one ever says, “Hey, wait a minute – something is wrong with this money order. There are no bank stamps, as there should be if it were really processed through the system.”
  • John Armstrong concocts his “bank stamp” theory some 35 years after the events and proceeds to hype it for 20 years without ever realizing the money order bears a File Locator Number or what the significance of this number is.

All of the above is pretty much straight from the archives of Armstrong's research at Baylor University - read it for yourself. Forgetting all of Armstrong’s speculation, supposed fabrications and smoking guns (the “trees,” as it were), I simply ask from the 30,000-foot level: Where, in all this, is there room for a plausible conspiracy? How many people would it have required – dozens? When would it have begun – in March, November, or sometime in between? Where would it have begun? What would have been the purpose? How would it have worked? I submit that we are looking at a perfectly ordinary chain of events, with a long-after-the-fact effort by Armstrong to force-fit these ordinary events into his exotic theory. I would love it if the money order were bogus – it would be fun! exciting! – but the reality appears to me to be thoroughly mundane. But then, alas, I don’t have a warehouse full of $90 books I’m trying to peddle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be ridiculous Lance. The presenting bank has to stamp it. Not only does that make a lot more sense, the regulation specifically states "All cash items should be endorsed .... to the order of the Federal Reserve Bank..." The Klein's stamp served to endorsed the PMO to the First National Bank of Chicago, not the FRB.

Geez Lance, doesn't this ever get embarrassing for you? Just give up already.

Sandy, I'm sure you're a bright guy and you seem desperate to establish your Conspiracy Theorist credentials, but you’re as far out of your league as if I were to debate accounting practices with a CPA or quantum physics with a physicist. The regulation with which you are in love refers to “endorsement” of "cash items." The regulations prohibit anyone other than the payee from endorsing a postal money order. The same regulations also say that bank stamps will not be deemed endorsements in violation of this prohibition. Ergo, the "endorsement of cash items" regulation on which you are relying is, right from the get-go, inapplicable. Postal money orders are governed by the more specific rules applicable to postal money orders; that's how statutory interpretation works - the specific controls the general. As I have previously shown, a postal money order could indeed have a bank stamp (which would not be deemed to violate the prohibition against non-payee endorsements) if it were initially deposited with a bank that was not a member of the Federal Reserve system – in the case I cited, for example, the non-member bank had stamped the money order with its clearinghouse stamp when it sent the money order to its clearinghouse bank, a Federal Reserve member. From that point, the money order was in the Federal Reserve system. Once the money order is in the Federal Reserve system, the process is simply one of collection pursuant to an agreement between the Federal Reserve and the Postal Service – First National Bank (a Federal Reserve member bank) sends it to the regional Federal Reserve Bank, which serves as the collection agent for the Postal Service, and after processing by the Federal Reserve Bank the money order is then sent on to the Treasury Department for placement into storage. The concept of “endorsement” does not even make sense in this context.

I am not going to waste any more time with you, because frankly it is a waste of time. Please, continue to believe in the Tooth Fairy if it makes you happy.

Edited by Lance Payette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you rubber-stamped a File Locator Number, this would not be a File Locator Number because they are not rubber-stamped. ... "A locator number is printed on each check...

Oh my gosh... if you can't figure this out...

Okay then, print the FLN. With a metal plate, not a rubber pad.

Do you think that makes it any more authentic?

Only if the money order were subsequently located in a matter of minutes in the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia, using the machines and procedures by which previously processed postal money orders that had been assigned File Locator Numbers and placed into storage were routinely located. Your rubber-stamp example would be identified as bogus in seconds. A more convincing counterfeit of a File Locator Number would be exposed when it was discovered that no money order bearing that File Locator Number was in the Records Center, or that a different money order bearing that File Locator Number was actually in storage. What you fail to grasp is that the stamp of authenticity of this money order is that it bears a valid File Locator Number and that it was subsequently located in storage at the Federal Records Center using that number.

I'm not failing to grasp anything.

What you're failing to grasp is that there would be no real search for an authentic money order in a government run cover-up whose intent is to hide the true nature of the money order. Any such "search" would be for show only.

Apparently you're failing to grasp that because of the following circular reasoning you're engaging in:

1. We know the PMO is authentic because an FLN is printed on it.

2. We know the FLN is genuine because the money order was readily found in a search for that FL number.

3. We know that the search really took place because the PMO was found.

GO TO 1 AND REPEAT AD INFINITUM.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lance,

I would appreciate it if you are a little more circumspect in how you address fellow members.

The administrators prefer a more civilised mode of discussion, and one where there is an absence of sarcasm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...