Jump to content
The Education Forum
Jim Hargrove

John Armstrong blasts the mail order rifle “evidence”

Recommended Posts

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.

I came up with pretty much the same scenario as yours when I assumed that the rifle purchase really took place. I documented it earlier on this thread.

If I were to assume the rifle purchase did not take place, I'd probably end up with a scenario much like John Armstrong's. I also documented this conclusion earlier on this thread.

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.

I continue to disagree with you.

I agree with the bank executives John Armstrong and Jim DiEugenio spoke to.

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.

Yes, I've noticed. The absence of sarcasm and personal attacks is the veritable hallmark of this forum. WILD, HYSTERICAL LAUGHTER. I believe this is known as a "rule that is honored in the breach." However, I can assure you that in the future "the administrators" will notice an almost a complete absence of sarcasm or anything else from moi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I continue to disagree with you.

I agree with the bank executives John Armstrong and Jim DiEugenio spoke to.

This is Jim's post from February 20th on another thread (I can find no other descriptions of the conversation):

BTW, I asked a bank supervisor about postal money orders a few days ago.

My question was: "Do you treat them any differently than any other currency, like checks or bank money orders?"

Craig: "No, we don't."

Well, there you go - I guess that pretty well settles things! Ask (or at least say you asked) an anonymous bank supervisor a vague and off the cuff question as to whether he "handles" money orders like "currency," and the rest of us can go home.

As for Armstrong's supposed bank executive, I can find no information anywhere. He certainly isn't mentioned in Armstrong's latest write-up, touted in the original post in this thread. Odd. Perhaps as true believers, we are supposed to accept Armstrong's assurances on faith: "Yep, I spoke to a bank executive with 37 years of experience [gee, that would only take him back to 1979] and he agrees with me right down the line." OK, big guy, I'm satisfied.

As someone who sees fabrication under every rock, Armstrong himself seems to me distinctly less than forthcoming. (I just read his latest write-up again, and the repeated references to the "author's belief" that pretty much every document in the entire money order scenario was "fabricated" become comical. Once one reaches the point of having to assert that 90% of all documents that contravene your theory were fabricated - by the FBI, Secret Service and Postal Service, no less - isn't it exponentially more likely that your theory is flawed?)

So who are these "bank executives" you agree with? Precisely what have they said that you "agree with"? And what does it have to do with the processing of punch card postal money orders in 1963?

Edited by Lance Payette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lance,

By about 1962, there was a long-established procedure for the processing of bank items. This procedure was reflected in Articles 3 and 4 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Article 3 dealt with "commercial paper", which were and are negotiable instruments. Article 4 dealt with bank deposits. The same articles exist today, hardly unchanged from 1962.

Postal money orders (PMOs) were considered by the courts in the early 1960s not to be negotiable instruments. Today they are considered negotiable instruments. The change is one of form, not substance. In the early 1960s, PMOs were not negotiated as they were transferred from one bank to another; but the fact they weren't negotiated was based on the one-endorser rule. In fact, in substance, PMOs were handled by all banks as negotiable instruments because of the fact a bank stamp wasn't considered an endorsement, even though it functioned like one. The bank stamp was critical; it's what allowed a transferor bank to be paid by a transferee bank.

The A. Hidell PMO was not stamped by First National Bank of Chicago (First). First therefore did not get paid by the Chicago Fed for the A. Hidell PMO...unless you or someone else produces bank statements to the contrary.

Lance, I respect that you are a member of the Arizona Bar. I extend every professional courtesy to you. But I think you stray from your training and experience when you post on this blog.

Edited by Jon G. Tidd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

As I've said many times before, if you want to believe virtually everything was (or COULD HAVE BEEN) faked in the JFK case, then OF COURSE you're going to distrust ANY signs of genuineness and validity. It's what CTers do best---they look sideways at ALL the evidence.

So even if the File Locator Number is 100% real and legitimate, Sandy Larsen's argument will STILL trump all other arguments for Sandy and other CTers --- because EVERYTHING in life I suppose COULD be fake.

I wonder, therefore, what good ANY court trial is when it comes to arriving at the absolute truth? ~shrug~

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP: And Jimmy D. apparently won't even consider the notion that Oswald went to the post office BEFORE he ever went to work on March 12th (vs. buying the M.O. after 8:00 AM). It's quite possible the post office opened prior to 8 AM

You have been saying this for how long now? Years, decades, generations.

​Where is the evidence for it? Oh, its in the same place that you found out that John Hunt was BSing about the CE 399 with no ELT initials on it. Right. Well, we are still waiting for that one. Many years later.

Or maybe its in that phony reg you produced to CYA about that nutty idea, "oh, the post office kept the REA orders and payments in a box and then sent them over to REA." Just nutty. But you said it with absolutely no proof. Just because you knew there was no evidence that the FBI ever went to REA which they had to do if Oswald picked up the hand gun there.

Or maybe its in the place that you and Lance found that non existent rule about PMO's being segregated out in order to dodge the fact that there is no marking on the PMO that it went through the system.

​So, how long is the statue of limitations on this? Do you get five years, ten years, 15 years to come up with something that you talk about but cannot produce? If you cannot produce it, then just :shutup

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...there is no marking on the PMO that it went through the system.

Still want to totally ignore the File Locator Number, eh Jimmy? (Why of course you do.)

And your position regarding Oswald taking possession of the S&W revolver continues to be one of the funniest things on the Internet.

Regardless of WHERE Oswald picked up the gun (whether it was at the post office or at REA), we KNOW he DID pick it up someplace, because he had that gun ON HIM on Nov. 22 in the theater. That is a FACT, regardless of your whining and foot pounding and Black Op Radio giggling.

But it's understandable why a rabid Internet CTer like Jimmy D. needs to pretend LHO didn't have the V510210 gun in his hands on 11/22. Because if Jimbo were to ever admit the truth, he would have no choice but to admit that Oswald shot and killed Patrolman J.D. Tippit. And we know Jimmy would never want to admit such a reality. Don't we, James?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you cannot produce it, then just :shutup

Is it okay for me to use that same rule on CTers, Jimmy? Such as on John Armstrong when he claimed in his book that there was some kind of Wilmouth statement that proved PMOs required commercial bank stamps?

And can I use it on all the CTers who claim there were gunmen firing from the Knoll at JFK on 11/22?

And on the CTers who insist there was a hole in the limo's windshield?

And on the CTers who insist there were a bunch of other bullets recovered from various places on 11/22?

And on and on to "CTer make-believe plots" infinity?

DiEugenio never met a pot (or a kettle) he didn't like.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lance,

By about 1962, there was a long-established procedure for the processing of bank items. This procedure was reflected in Articles 3 and 4 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Article 3 dealt with "commercial paper", which were and are negotiable instruments. Article 4 dealt with bank deposits. The same articles exist today, hardly unchanged from 1962.

Postal money orders (PMOs) were considered by the courts in the early 1960s not to be negotiable instruments. Today they are considered negotiable instruments. The change is one of form, not substance. In the early 1960s, PMOs were not negotiated as they were transferred from one bank to another; but the fact they weren't negotiated was based on the one-endorser rule. In fact, in substance, PMOs were handled by all banks as negotiable instruments because of the fact a bank stamp wasn't considered an endorsement, even though it functioned like one. The bank stamp was critical; it's what allowed a transferor bank to be paid by a transferee bank.

The A. Hidell PMO was not stamped by First National Bank of Chicago (First). First therefore did not get paid by the Chicago Fed for the A. Hidell PMO...unless you or someone else produces bank statements to the contrary.

Lance, I respect that you are a member of the Arizona Bar. I extend every professional courtesy to you. But I think you stray from your training and experience when you post on this blog,

Jon, with all due respect back to you, I have been living with the UCC for 35 years (if you include my law school courses specifically dealing with the UCC). I have a complex banking case before the Arizona Court of Appeals right now. While my experience may pale in comparison to yours (you are a highly experienced commercial lawyer, duly admitted and in good standing, right?), I will now attempt to educate you one final time before moving on.

Just this morning I did a 50-state search relating to postal money orders and their status as negotiable instruments and/or their regulation by the UCC. I found precisely nothing to substantiate the point you seem to be making. First, we will review, in reverse chronological order, what the courts have said. You will note that, while the Internet is replete with casual references to postal money orders as “negotiable instruments,” they are in fact not negotiable instruments – and some of the critical distinctions are those at issue here:

State v. Entringer, 246 Wis.2d 839, 631 N.W.2d 651 (Wis. App. 2001):

First, a postal money order is different than a Travelers Express personal money order. Unlike the personal money order in LaRue, payment cannot be stopped on a postal money order. See O'Malley, Legal Aspects of Postal Money Orders, 84 Banking L.J. 471 (1967). In fact, a postal money order is not even a negotiable instrument. 11 AM. JUR. 2D Bills and Notes § 32 (1997); Computer Works, Inc. v. CNA Ins. Cos., 757 P.2d 167, 168 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988). Thus, we conclude a postal money order is much more akin to a bank cashier's check and represents a direct obligation to pay a holder. As such, the signature of the payer has no effect on the genuineness of the money order.

Hong Kong Importers, Inc. v. American Exp. Co., 301 So.2d 707 (La. App. 1974):

The issuance of postal money orders is a governmental function rather than a commercial function, therefore, postal money orders are not negotiable instruments subject to the defenses permitted to bona fide holders for value by the law merchant. 39 U.S.C. § 5104 provides, * * * more than one endorsement renders an (a postal money) order invalid. * * * Thus a postal money order is unlike the ordinary negotiable instrument covered by modern codes and statutes. See United States v. First National Bank of Boston, 263 F.Supp. 298 (D.C.1967).

United States v. First National Bank of Boston, 263 F.Supp. 298 (D. Mass. 1967):

To be a negotiable instrument within the Uniform Commercial Code and within the laws of the 47 states which have adopted substantially all its provisions, a writing must "be payable to order or to bearer." § 3-104(1) (d). "An instrument is payable to order when by its terms it is payable to the order or assigns of any person therein specified * * *." § 3-110(1). We may assume, without deciding, that a money order though it does not use the word "order" uses equivalent language because the order, going beyond giving a direction to "PAY TO" a specified purchaser, states that "ownership of this order may be transferred to another person or firm if the person will write the name of such person or firm on the line marked `pay to' before writing his own name on the second line." Compare Comment 5 to § 3-110. However, the money order adds, on the basis of 39 U.S.C. § 5104, already quoted, that "More than one endorsement is prohibited by law." Such a restriction is contrary to § 3-301 of the Uniform Commercial Code which provides that "The holder of an instrument whether or not he is the owner may transfer and negotiate it", and is out of harmony with § 3-206(1) which provides that "No restrictive indorsement prevents further transfer or negotiation of the instrument." Thus it cannot be said that in all respects a postal domestic money order is like the ordinary negotiable instrument covered by modern codes and statutes. See United States v. Cambridge Trust Company, 1st Cir., 300 F.2d 76, 77.

Stewart v. U.S., 300 F. Supp. 1047 (E.D. Mich. 1969):

Postal money orders are not negotiable instruments and hence are not governed by laws applicable to commercial paper, but are governed by postal laws. This court is aware of the fact that postal money orders have limited characteristics which make them like negotiable instruments, but these characteristics are minimal and deprive them of being classified or considered as ordinary negotiable instruments. United States v. First National Bank of Boston (D.C.Mass., 1967), 263 F.Supp. 298. The operation of the postal money order system is a "sovereign function" and not a "commercial operation", notwithstanding it may have some aspects of commercial banking. United States v. Northwestern Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. (D.C.Minn., 1940), 35 F.Supp. 484, at 486.

United States v. Northwestern Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 35 F. Supp. 484 (D. Minn., 1940):

That a postal money order is nonnegotiable cannot be seriously controverted. It lacks the essential characteristics of a negotiable instrument. There are numerous restrictions and limitations to be found in the Postal Laws and Regulations which are entirely inconsistent with negotiability. For instance, only one endorsement is permitted; two endorsements invalidate the order. Section 1432, Postal Laws and Regulations of 1932. Payments are withheld under certain enumerated circumstances. Section 1434. Section 1435 provides that if a person is conducting a lottery or distributing money or property by chance, the Postmaster General may forbid the payment of money orders drawn to the order of such persons.

I also refer you, as I have previously, to the scholarly article: O’Malley, John D., “Legal Aspects of Postal Money Orders,” 52 Cornell Law Review 357 (1967): “A review of the meager authority on postal money orders will produce but one definite conclusion – a negative one. A postal money order is not a negotiable instrument.”

You state: “In the early 1960s, PMOs were not negotiated as they were transferred from one bank to another; but the fact they weren't negotiated was based on the one-endorser rule [still in effect, BTW]. In fact, in substance, PMOs were handled by all banks as negotiable instruments because of the fact a bank stamp wasn't considered an endorsement, even though it functioned like one. The bank stamp was critical; it's what allowed a transferor bank to be paid by a transferee bank.”

With all due respect and deference to your vast legal expertise, this statement appears to me to be gibberish – literally, gibberish. As I have previously noted, and as is beyond dispute, the Federal Reserve System serves as the collection agent for the Postal Service in regard to postal money orders. Your statement that “the bank stamp was critical” has been pulled out of thin air – and, moreover, assumes the very thing which is to be proven (and which can’t be proven because it is incorrect).

Please, put me to shame with your impeccable credentials and vast legal experience. Then explain away all of the above authorities, with appropriate citations to controverting legal authorities. Please do not pull the Armstrong/DeEugenio gambit of referring me to some vague conversation with some highly experienced but anonymous banker with whom you supposedly spoke and who supposedly agrees with everything you say.

(For those who may wish to educate themselves on this subject, I caution you: Do not make the mistake, common to non-lawyers and even many inexperienced lawyers, of failing to remember that we are talking about postal money orders. We are not talking about "money orders" in general, about "bank" money orders or "privately issued" money orders. We are talking about postal money orders; they are different animals. If you do not make this distinction, you will only confuse yourself, as it appears to me that Jon may have done.)

Edited by Lance Payette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lance -

Looks like you're reading off my timeline http://www.ctka.net/2015/JosephsMOTimeline.pdf - yet you leave out so much. Why, for example would SS Chief Paterni need to issue and order at 8:30pm 11/23 to find the PMO when Holmes had found it by lunch and the SS also finds it in Kansas City?

Don't these two reports contradict each other and the Holmes story where he uses the wrong magazine, wrong ad and wrong amounts to find the correct stub - and when found we do not record or keep the stub or the name of the person who found it...

Maybe get off the island and look into the actual case itself rather than spewing postal regulations?

CE1799%20and%20SS%20report%20conflict%20

Like so many who only look at one tiny fraction of a topic - your side trip thru Money Order Law does not address the simplest of evidentiary questions

In the report of Mr. Wilmouth, First National's VP, he describes finding 2 instances of a $21.45 entry on the Klein's deposit tapes from March 13 when there are 8 on these tapes

as well as amounts on the deposit that do not match to the Waldman exhibit.

Please point out the $1536.11 package group, and the $6,178 group total. I see $3804.67 and $9992.43 and the wrong date of Feb 15, 1963.

No vague references to anything Lance... just more and more evidence of the creation of that PMO by Marks, Jackson and the SS...

Keep looking Lance... I always thought the first rule of lawyering was not to ask questions you didn't already have the answers to ??

Wilmouth%20describes%20the%20Kleins%20de

klein%20deposit%20slip%20Wilmouth%20and%

Kleins%20bank%20statement%20-%20Waldman%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lance -

Looks like you're reading off my timeline http://www.ctka.net/2015/JosephsMOTimeline.pdf - yet you leave out so much. Why, for example would SS Chief Paterni need to issue and order at 8:30pm 11/23 to find the PMO when Holmes had found it by lunch and the SS also finds it in Kansas City?

Ah, yes, the old change-the-subject ploy. I believe others on the money order threads have pointed out the frequency with which the Armstrong fans resort to this ploy. Rather than bog down in timeline minutiae, because I frankly don't have the interest and really wouldn't care if the money order were bogus, I would like to see someone intelligently answer my "30,000-foot level" post: Except as an exercise in selling $90 books and feeding the paranoia of a certain segment of the JFK research community, WHAT SENSE does the supposed "money order conspiracy" make? If someone comes to me with a wild and complex tale, my threshold inquiry is in the vein of "Would this make any sense whatsoever, even if it were true?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What bunch of baloney at 219 by DVP.

If the post office was open at 7:30 or 7:00 that morning, then why would it take 15 years to find the evidence for it?

Especially since you had the late Gary Mack right there to find it for you. I mean as the curator of the Sixth Floor, he had a lot of power to do things in Dallas Fort Worth. I mean look what he did for the fiftieth.

This is not just a matter of interpretation. Like say Weldon's hole in the windshield.

It was either open or not.

If it was, then show it was.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lance Payette said:

Ah, yes, the old change-the-subject ploy. I believe others on the money order threads have pointed out the frequency with which the Armstrong fans resort to this ploy.

Lance, it was YOU who changed the topic, not David Josephs.

We were talking bank stamps on PMOs, when you posted this:

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.

After David Josephs in Post 221 responds to what you had written, you blame HIM for changing the subject.

Lance -

Looks like you're reading off my timeline http://www.ctka.net/2015/JosephsMOTimeline.pdf - yet you leave out so much. Why, for example would SS Chief Paterni need to issue and order at 8:30pm 11/23 to find the PMO when Holmes had found it by lunch and the SS also finds it in Kansas City?

Ah, yes, the old change-the-subject ploy. I believe others on the money order threads have pointed out the frequency with which the Armstrong fans resort to this ploy. Rather than bog down in timeline minutiae, because I frankly don't have the interest and really wouldn't care if the money order were bogus, I would like to see someone intelligently answer my "30,000-foot level" post: Except as an exercise in selling $90 books and feeding the paranoia of a certain segment of the JFK research community, WHAT SENSE does the supposed "money order conspiracy" make? If someone comes to me with a wild and complex tale, my threshold inquiry is in the vein of "Would this make any sense whatsoever, even if it were true?"

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...