Jump to content
The Education Forum
Jim Hargrove

WARNING to Forum Members: Please Read This!

Recommended Posts

Bottom line, Sandy was correct about bank endorsements, you chose not to believe him.

No, as I explained in my last post, I choose to believe that the following words within the FRB regulation can be properly applied to the Hidell Postal Money Order, IF that money order had been included in a large bulk "cash letter" type of deposit by the FNB of Chicago. In such a "bulk" deposit, "All cash items" (in BULK form) probably were endorsed via a "cash letter" which accompanied the multiple money orders that FNB sent to the FRB, which would include the Hidell M.O. ....

"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."

Scott,

David is making stuff up. He claims that the DEPOSIT SLIP was endorsed rather than the individual PMOs. (The deposit slip is called a "cash letter.") There is NO reason to believe this is true. There is ZERO evidence. Not even a SINGLE HINT of this has been seen ANYWHERE.

It's just DVP's theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet, incredibly, apparently the plotters who allegedly faked the Hidell PMO must ALSO have believed in that same "theory" that DVP has endorsed....because those plotters decided to not place a single FNB marking on that phony Hidell PMO.

So, Sandy Larsen either believes in mind-boggling stupidity on the part of the conspirators.....or he'd have to put some stock in my theory about cash letters and bulk bank deposits.

Is there a third alternative, Sandy?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bottom line, Sandy was correct about bank endorsements, you chose not to believe him.

No, as I explained in my last post, I choose to believe that the following words within the FRB regulation can be properly applied to the Hidell Postal Money Order, IF that money order had been included in a large bulk "cash letter" type of deposit by the FNB of Chicago. In such a "bulk" deposit, "All cash items" (in BULK form) probably were endorsed via a "cash letter" which accompanied the multiple money orders that FNB sent to the FRB, which would include the Hidell M.O. ....

"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."

Scott,

David is making stuff up. He claims that the DEPOSIT SLIP was endorsed rather than the individual PMOs. (The deposit slip is called a "cash letter.") There is NO reason to believe this is true. There is ZERO evidence. Not even a SINGLE HINT of this has been seen ANYWHERE.

It's just DVP's theory.

"David is making stuff up."

​Thanks for clearing that up, I wasn't sure where he was getting his information from to prove an argument he was destine to fail.

Edited by Scott Kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there a third alternative, Sandy?

Yeah, why in God's name wouldn't you go with just plain incompetence? I personally, stick with number #1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Scott, the plotters could be guilty of incompetence, but the First National employees could not? Is that it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Scott, the plotters could be guilty of incompetence, but the First National employees could not? Is that it?

Wait a minute, I think I understand you now, and what you're saying is that since the plotters didn't bother to add any markings to the PMO to avoid any further investigation of blowing this PMO you're suggesting the bank just screwed up, is that what you're now saying? My father would say, I'm surrounded by what? LOL! :)

Edited by Scott Kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Scott. You offered up "incompetence" as an excuse. I assumed you meant incompetence by the CONSPIRATORS. Isn't that what you meant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No David, you asked for a third, I just merely gave you what you asked for, and now, you're trying to use it. Shame on you David.

Edited by Scott Kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy:

Its worse than that.

Both John and I interviewed two long time bank supervisors, my guy was in LA, his woman was in Vegas.

Combined, they have about 70 years experience in banking.

John actually showed the supervisor a copy of the PMO, she did a double take. Sort of like: What the heck is that? She then said, "That has never been validated by anyone. It hasn't been through the system."

The guy I talked to, I wanted to get the direct answer to the crazy DVP/Lance thing that they made up about PMO's being treated differently than other forms of currency for validation purposes. So I asked him that direct question. I said are PMO's treated any differently by you as they pass through the bank than say checks or other money orders. He said no they are not.

Now, recall, today things are a bit different because elf the use of computers and sensors.

But back then, you did not have those things. Therefore everything was manually tabulated and stamped.

And I am old enough to recall that I got these things back at the end of the month in an envelope from the bank.

Too me, this is simply a non starter now. DVP can make up whatever he wants at his Grimm Brothers site. But between John, Jim H, Sandy, David and the little work I did and now Scott, this is decided.

Oswald did not send that money order. In a court of law, it would be demolished.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet, incredibly, apparently the plotters who allegedly faked the Hidell PMO must ALSO have believed in that same "theory" that DVP has endorsed....because those plotters decided to not place a single FNB marking on that phony Hidell PMO.

So, Sandy Larsen either believes in mind-boggling stupidity on the part of the conspirators.....or he'd have to put some stock in my theory about cash letters and bulk bank deposits.

Is there a third alternative, Sandy?

The cover-up artists didn't ask all the right questions of all the right people. Therefore, unknown to them, their forgery wasn't complete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough for you to understand, you asked Sandy if there could be a third alternative I said perhaps, you should stick with an incompetent teller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Scott, the plotters could be guilty of incompetence, but the First National employees could not? Is that it?

That's right! (And don't call me Scott ;) ) The First National Bank employees stamped items every day. The cover-up artists didn't forge PMOs every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No David, you asked for a third, I just merely gave you what you asked for, and now, you're trying to use it. Shame on you David.

OK. Sorry. I thought you were trying to say you thought the plotters were "incompetent". But you (incredibly) think that the plotters KNEW that there SHOULD be 3 or 4 FNB stamps on the money order, but they decided to take a chance and NOT put any of them on the PMO, because it would create another line of inquiry that they didn't want. So they just hoped nobody would notice (or care) that the 3 or 4 FNB markings were nowhere to be found on a PMO that they surely wanted to make people think was real and genuine.

Gotcha.

Thanks.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So they just hoped nobody would notice (or care)

I suppose nobody noticed or cared about Gerald Ford moving the bullet hole in Kennedy's back either. Oh well, xxxx happens!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Scott, the plotters could be guilty of incompetence, but the First National employees could not? Is that it?

Golly gee! I should have known that of the hundreds of thousands of PMOs the bank takes in regularly the only one they were told to screw up on is Oswald's, but why only Oswald? Well for starters he was first accused of killing a cop, now we can get him on conspiracy to kill Kennedy too! Yes! How stupid of me to overlook your theory David, but of coarse, it was the banks fault, mums the word.

Edited by Scott Kaiser

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...