Jump to content
The Education Forum
Jim Hargrove

WARNING to Forum Members: Please Read This!

Recommended Posts

I've talked about Oswald's "cool and calm" demeanor many times in the past. Here's one such conversation I had with Bill Kelly at this forum in September 2013....

Truthfully, I believe you could talk about anyone's cool and calm demeanor, that doesn't make you them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took the liberty to edit post #225 and highlight only the important information, by the way in-case you ask what FRB stands for, it's Federal Reserve Bank.

Just trying to help you out here David.

Edited by Scott Kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I took the liberty to edit post #225 and highlight only the important information, by the way in-case you ask what FRB stands for, it's Federal Reserve Bank.

Just trying to help you out here David.

Yeah, I never would have figured that out -- even though I have been using that abbreviation for the last four months in these Edu. Forum threads, including three separate times in Post 224, which was before you ever wrote Post 225.

:rolleyes:

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I took the liberty to edit post #225 and highlight only the important information, by the way in-case you ask what FRB stands for, it's Federal Reserve Bank.

Just trying to help you out here David.

Yeah, I never would have figured that out -- even though I have been using that abbreviation for the last four months in these Edu. Forum threads, including three separate times in Post 224, which was before you ever wrote Post 225.

:rolleyes:

Okay, I'm not sure what that means, but I would like to take the time and apologize, for being wrong again, twice in a row, it happens like leap year, every four years, but here's where I was wrong. I said there were two "screw ups" from the bank right? Sadly, I was mistaken. When the bank didn't endorse the PMO and the Federal Reserve Bank, that's that phase you use FRB didn't endorse the PMO <----- means Postal Money Order, and the FRB did NOT send the PMO to the postmaster, well in a sense, that's a total of not one, not two, but three, that's (3) screw ups right?

I would like to know if I'm right David, please tell me if I'm wrong, that there wasn't (3) screw ups with the only PMO the FRB had in bulk knowing it was a forgery, am I right, waiting on something of real value, no excuses please.

Edited by Scott Kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, how would we know it's a forgery? Well, for starters, had that PMO reached the postmaster, it would have been publicly declared a forgery which would have been devastating to those who created the forgery, certainly someone would have looked into it and possibly discovering where the forgery was created. Secondly, I took the liberty of printing that PMO and I took it to my post office yesterday, I needed to mail out some stuff, and I asked them if this PMO was legit, at first they said it looks as though it was, that was until the manger got involved in our discussion, probably over hearing my conversation, thank God the post office was a little slow when I walked in, and guess what he said? No dice!

Edited by Scott Kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, how would we know it's a forgery? Well, for starters, had that PMO reached the postmaster, it would have been publicly declared a forgery which would have been devastating to those who created the forgery, certainly someone would have looked into it and possibly discovering where the forgery was created. Secondly, I took the liberty of printing that PMO and I took it to my post office yesterday, I needed to mail out some stuff, and I asked them if this PMO was legit, at first they said it looks as though it was, that was until the manger got involved in our discussion, probably over hearing my conversation, thank God the post office was a little slow when I walked in, and guess what he said? No dice!

What does this mean actually? That our friend Lee H. Oswald aka A. Hidell was set up....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 7075 -Processing Domestic International Money Orders (Semi-Domestic)

Canadian money orders, ABA routing number 0000-0127, and Canal Zone money orders, ABA routing number 0000-0800, can be mechanically processed; all others must be processed manually. The batch size of Canadian money orders cannot exceed 200 documents. Money orders of different countries cannot be intermingled; each country must be batched separately. The total of all domestic-international money orders should be shown under code 400 on the PS Form 1901

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one is my personal favorite? Why? Because the FRB never lost the PMO in transit, the plotters knew it could never reach the postmaster.

After all, you have a copy of it don'tcha David?

Section 7080 -Other Procedural Matters

7080.10 -Postal Service Reimbursement to FRBs. The Postal Service has agreed to reimburse the FRBs for services provided in processing postal money orders beyond the level of service provided to financial institutions paying cash items. Charges will be determined by an annual survey, according to Federal Reserve and U.S. Postal Service agreements, and will be billed monthly with a single bill for each Federal Reserve District submitted to the Money Order Division, and will be paid at the end of each 6 months. The Postal Service reserves the right to review and challenge the method used in calculating these charges.

7080.20 -Replacement of Money Order Lost in Transit. When a money order is lost in transit, in place of submitting a photostatic copy, a PS Form 6401 "Domestic Money Order Inquiry", must be submitted (Appendix No. 1). The forms are available at all post offices. The money order serial number, amount, purchaser or payee, name and address to whom a replacement is to be issued, and the written signature of the person filing the request for replacement must be completed on the PS Form 6401. The remaining information should be provided, if available, to aid in the replacement process. If the original money order has been paid, a replacement cannot be issued. A photocopy of the paid item will be provided without cost to the FRB.

Edited by Scott Kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Von Pein, on 29 Feb 2016 - 02:05 AM, said:

The money order ended up in the exact place it should have been -- at the Federal Records Center near Washington. The BOFD (Bank of First Deposit)--First National--sent it to the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago. And then the FRB sent it to the Records Center in Washington for storage, whereupon (after 2 years) it is discarded. See CD75 below, where Lester Gohr of the FRB confirms where 75% of the PMOs were being sent after being handled by the FRB in Chicago as of March of 1963. Do you think this fellow named Gohr was lying too, Scott?....

http://www.maryferre...7#relPageId=673

Do you think this fellow named Gohr was lying too, Scott?....

Affirmative, absolutely and might I add a hell yes! An "assistance cashier" is going to say what he's told to say, he's an assistance, probably on training, now why didn't the WC question the Head Teller or branch manger?

Edited by Scott Kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a heads-up to those that may not know....

DVP is a master at throwing topics off track, like this very thread you are reading.

And, this is is what he does with his participation here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/assorted-assassination-arguments.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/02/

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/01/

While it Is important to have all points of view here at EF, I don't see why EF should be feeding his ego-archive off site.

 

Edit "heads-up" inserted in place of "reminder". An u

 

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the plug, Michael. (I can't figure out, though, why on Earth you'd want to bump this old thread in order to advertise some of my site links. ???? It's a strange world indeed.) ~shrug~ (But thanks anyway.) :)

Allow me to reciprocate (in a fashion)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=The+Education+Forum

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

DVP is a master at throwing topics off track, like this very thread you are reading.

Dead wrong, Mr. Clark. It was Sandy Larsen who started to take this absurd DVP Bashfest thread off-topic (see Page 4)....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22690-warning-to-forum-members-please-read-this/?do=findComment&comment=326213

But I then brought the DVP Bashfest thread right back on-topic in my very next post (also on Page 4).

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Von Pein and I are not exactly great friends.  I appreciate all the information he has made available on the Internet, but we still come to different conclusions on what the evidence means.

It appears to me that Mr. Von Pein is a master at starting with a conclusion and then finding evidence to fit...rather than taking the evidence and following wherever.  A difference of philosophy, I suppose.

But I didn't come to this forum to bash Mr. Von Pein; I came here to be shown evidence, and then to reach my own conclusions from the evidence.  And at this point, the evidence I've seen negates the SBT, and using the angles, strongly imply that Connally was hit by a bullet from the southwest window of the 6th floor of the TSBD.

No matter what you think of Oswald's guilt or innocence, IF you agree that shots came from the southeast window of the TSBD, then that alone shouts CONSPIRACY.  It soes NOT tell us who the shooters may have been, so it leaves that question wide open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
7 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

DVP is a master at throwing topics off track, like this very thread you are reading.

Dead wrong, Mr. Clark. It was Sandy Larsen who started to take this absurd DVP Bashfest thread off-topic (see Page 4)....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22690-warning-to-forum-members-please-read-this/?do=findComment&comment=326213

But I then brought the DVP Bashfest thread right back on-topic in my very next post (also on Page 4).

 

Hey David, how can you blame me for taking the thread of topic? My post was a response to your off-topic post (which was factually incorrect).

(Note: It is is now difficult to understand my post due to Photobucket breaking the image I posted there.)

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Hey David, how can you blame me for taking the thread of topic? My post was a response to your off-topic post (which was factually incorrect).

But if you trace back the links, you'll see that my brief response about the File Locator Number (which was not "factually incorrect" at all, IMO) was in response to one of Dave Healy's useless rants, and I then went right back "on topic" (i.e., back to the silly DVP Bashfest started by Jim Hargrove) on Page 4.

So I didn't STAY "off topic". I merely made a short remark aimed at Healy.

But, let's face facts---almost all threads go "off topic" (at least somewhat), right? It's as certain as death, taxes, and a stupid Trump tweet. :)

Edited by David Von Pein

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...