Thomas Graves

No one else here accuses people of being "paranoid" simply because they disagree with you. And those that you accuse are among the many who gladly accept new information without sarcasm, condescension, or accusations of mental illness. Dear Tom, Does "the many" include DiEugenio, Prudhomme, Barto, LeDoux, Healey, Parker, and yourself, for example? Edit: Gladly accepting new information without reacting with sarcasm or condescension? Or by "new information" do you really mean "new information that doesn't conflict with my / our currently-held beliefs or theories"? --Tommy

If you actually have read the messages and still don't have the answer to your question then it is pointless to reiterate. Having read your recent responses to Jim D., Sandy, Robert, and me, I can only conclude that you are incapable of accepting input contrary to your own, regardless of its merit. Tom Dear Tom, If that's the case, then I must fit in very well here indeed. --Tommy

If you have to ask then you haven't read the posts.Tom Dear Tom, I've already read all of them, Tom. Which posts are you referring to regarding my alleged replacing the actual thoughts of other people with my own opinions? I am willing to read them again... Thanks, --Tommy

I've already answered it, but you keep substituting your personal opinions for what others are ACTUALLY thinking. Can you provide proof that you know what someone else is thinking, BETTER then they do? Until you do your arguments and sarcasm are totally and completely irrelevant. Tom Dear Tom, Whose "actual thoughts" are you referring to right now? Robert Prudhomme's? Yours? Klein's? A hypothetical customer of Kleins? All of the above? Please specify. --Tommy

First you state that you agree, then in the same sentence (sarcastically) state evidence that contradicts your original agreement. i.e. why would someone not want a "better" rifle. You fail to counter my argument that what you personally consider "better" is not what the customer considered "better" based upon the model he ordered. When you have no counter-argument, sarcasm is a lame substitute for admitting you are wrong... Tom No, Tom. It's just my way of being ........ sarcastic. You've probably noticed that I'm the only person who is like that here. From time to time. Oops, there I go again. Could you please answer this question for me: Why wouldn't most customers accept the presumably farther-shooting, more accurate "long arm" instead of having to go to the trouble of returning it and waiting for their first choice or a refund to arrive? --Tommy

Dear Greg, I've got some sad news for you. Despite what you dream, Trejo and I are not "a pair". At least not officially. You see, The Agency told me a long time ago to disassociate myself from "WT" so that we could spread disinformation here more effectively. --Tommy You are "paired" on this issue, Tommy, by your own words. Of course, if you want an annulment, I happen to know there is a member here who is a bona fide online Minister and has the certificate to prove it. I'm sure she will grant the divorce for the proper fee. For what it's worth, paranoia does strike rather deeply, doesn't it, Greg? I mean, even among our finest researchers, like you. So tell me, how does it feel? I mean, you went to the finest schools, Miss Lonely, ... didn't you? --Tommy

Dear Jim, Thanks for sharing that. I personally don't think Walker had anything to do with the assassination. At least not wittingly. I'm very interested in Morales, Phillips, Harvey, and Angleton, however. And Banister if that's okay with you. --Tommy

Paul B., The Walker bullet is CE 573. Here's a good color photograph of it:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18625 MORE IMPORTANT AS EVIDENCE IS THE PAPER TRAIL OF LETTERS FROM WALKER HIMSELF: http://www.pet880.com/images/19790621_Walker_Blakey_TV.pdf Robert Blakey stepped in the mud when he showed a "pristine" bullet to the TV cameras. That brought Edwin Walker out of hiding. Walker was always PROUD of the fact that LHO was his shooter as well as JFK's shooter -- it was his LEGACY, and he repeated the story until he died. Everybody knew about the Walker bullet. It is impossible to trace it to any rifle, it is so mutilated. The only thing that links LHO to the Walker shooting is the testimony of Marina Oswald and the Walker Letter, which Marina says LHO wrote to her on the night of the Walker shooting. Critics have accused Ruth Paine of forging the Walker Letter -- using very shabby logic. Ruth Paine never saw the Walker Letter until the Secret Service brought it to her door on December 2nd, 1963, accusing her of forging it. The Secret Service later apologized to Ruth Paine after handwriting experts agreed that it was written in LHO's handwriting. Regards, --Paul Trejo The first letter speaks of fragments, plural, but the photo only shows one "fragment" -- the bullet itself. Where is / are the smaller piece / pieces? --Tommy

Dear Robert, Thanks for pointing that out. So Kleins would have been even more justified, at least in their own minds, in sending a customer the 40.2" model instead of the 36" model, especially if they were out of the 36" ones. --Tommy ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps, then, you would be so good as to explain this response to my post and, if it was not related to my post, just how you arrived at this conclusion. Dear Robert, Don't get all paranoid on me again. The purpose for my post was twofold: 1 ) To thank you for pointing out that the photos in the Kleins ad were inaccurately-labeled and therefore misleading. 2 ) To offer my own opinion as to how Kleins could have used this kind of deceptive advertising to their advantage when sending someone a carbine / short rifle / rifle that they hadn't specifically ordered. IMHO, you give yourself way too much credit for what I say and do. --Tommy

Dear Greg, I've got some sad news for you. Despite what you dream, Trejo and I are not "a pair". At least not officially. You see, The Agency told me a long time ago to disassociate myself from "WT" so that we could spread disinformation here more effectively. --Tommy

Dear Robert, Where did I say that you had said that? I wish that you would lose this annoying habit you have of reacting to my statements in a defensive, rather paranoiac way. --Tommy

Dear Robert, Thanks for pointing that out. So Kleins would have been even more justified, at least in their own minds, in sending a customer the 40.2" model instead of the 36" model, especially if they were out of the 36" ones. --Tommy

Well, yes, Paul. I only wonder (if it was Morales in the Jim Doyle's film) whether he had "gone rogue" at this point, of it he was there on the orders of his higher-ups in The Agency. The other amateur photographer who got Oswald and the police (and a glimpse of Bringuier) on film that afternoon in New Orleans was a guy by the name of John T. Martin (fwiw, I've found a guy by the name of John Timothy Martin of the right age living in Saint Paul, Minnesota). Google "Jack S. Martin Sr." on our JFK Assassination Debate search engine and you'll find a thread which has a lot of information on all of the Jack / John Martins associated with the assassination, including this John T. Martin. You can view his footage of Walker's house and Oswald's arrest here: http://emuseum.jfk.org/view/objects/asitem/86/8/title-desc?t:state:flow=8ab3f9e7-268b-4cf8-861a-42b540fb31d8 Thanks for your continuing interest, --Tommy

I gotta agree with "W. T." Trejo on one thing here. (Heaven forbid! DiEugenio will never forgi)ve me!) Marina may have lied in her early statements out of fear (irrational? maybe not -- she had grown up in a police state known as Russia, and may have assumed that the same things happened here) of being deported back to The Worker's Paradise, and thence, perhaps, to a "gulag" in Siberia, or even to a certain ... basement in the Kremlin. If so, she may have been more truthful later when she realized that that wasn't gonna happen, and especially when she was put under oath by the WC... --Tommy Those sorts of arguments work both ways. It is my contention she was not quarantined for her own protection, but to get her "mind right". According to Robert Oswald, she was threatened. There was no need for that until they got her initial statements.When those statements were not favorable to the developing government narrative... Or are you seriously suggesting she lied in a manner that went AGAINST the government so that the government would not send her packing back to Russia? I'm glad you note how irrational that is - because it most assuredly is. That you even have to posit she was irrational to try and get this "logic" accepted says it all. You have no evidence of that - none whatsoever. The Big Bad Government does not threaten or torture people who are already being cooperative. They're not sadists, after all. Dear Greg, Please fill me in. Did Marina's early statements tend to help or hurt the US Government's (i.e., the FBI's and CIA's) position on her dead husband's alleged role in the assassination of JFK? If I remember correctly, they didn't help it very much, or did they? Regardless, I would imagine that those early statements were made according to what she believed was in the best interest of her and her babies' well-being and safety. Maybe she believed, irrationally by our standards, there was a good chance she and her babies would be deported back to Russia if she said "the wrong thing," whatever that was, or, conversely, made statements which she thought could somehow make her look complicit in the assassination of the most powerful (and perhaps the most popular) man in the world. --Tommy

The rifle purchase has been thoroughly explored. There is no evidence that Kleins was out of 36" carbines. The above is your personal opinion. Whose [sic] to say Kleins would agree with you? Also, a Carbine was ordered, not a standard length rifle. You are presuming that a longer rifle would be as good or better for the purchaser. Would a business assume this? Perhaps someone who ORDERS a carbine WANTS a carbine, or they would have ordered a standard length. They run the risk of paying return postage if the customer is not satisfied. In what way is this better for Klein's profit and customer satisfaction? Tom Dear Tom, You're absolutely right. A mail order customer would likely have been unhappy to receive a presumably longer-range and more accurate 40.2" rifle instead of a 36" carbine, so Kleins would have been very silly to send him one if they were out of carbines, wouldn't they. My bad, --Tommy

The problem with your approach, Paul, can be summed up in one word. YOU. Issuing edicts about what people MUST believe and MUST do. Ptui. You'd have been sent to the Colonies for the theft of oxygen once upon a time. No, Greg, it's basic logic. Your material, like Carol Hewett's and James DiEugenio, invents all the material you bloody well feel like inventing. You're smart enough to avoid the Harvey and Lee fiction, but you make up your own fiction. In your fiction, LHO was purely a victim of some US Government plot -- and that included Ruth and Michael Paine, but also Marina Oswald, George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt, and anybody else they knew who was cited in the Warren Report. You don't have sworn evidence to go on -- you reject 90% of it, and use the other 10% to construct a fiction. You're left with no alternative than to invent fictions. For you, LHO was never in Mexico City -- he was in Houston like he told Ruth Paine and Marina. SEEMS LIKE YOU'VE NEVER READ THE LOPEZ-HARDWAY REPORT, am I right? Go on, admit it. You're not many steps removed from "Harvey and Lee," IMHO. Also, your harsh language and bluster don't influence my opinion in the slightest. Regards, --Paul Trejo Tell me what I have invented, Paul. This should be good. In the meantime, let me explain something yet again. I follow the Golden Rule about witness statements. What is the Golden Rule? That initial statements are more reliable than latter statements - including those made under oath. That is borne out by every single study on this issue. Are there exceptions? Of course there are. But you want to make those exceptions the rule. You have no case otherwise... Dear Greg, I gotta agree with "W. T." Trejo on one thing here. (Heaven forbid! DiEugenio will never forgive me!) Marina may have been prone to lying in her early statements out of fear (irrational? maybe not -- she had grown up in a police state known as Russia, and may have assumed that the same things happened here) of being deported back to The Worker's Paradise, and thence, perhaps, to a "gulag" in Siberia, or even to a certain ... basement in the Kremlin. If so, she may have been more truthful later when she realized that that wasn't gonna happen, and especially when she was put under oath by the WC... --Tommy

Probably because you're talking about CHECKS and not POSTAL MONEY ORDERS in this example, Sandy. That's why. Big difference. The First National Bank of Chicago very likely handled Postal Money Orders differently (in bulk) than they did checks. Also note that checks say, "Pay To The Order Of" whereas Postal Money Orders say, "Pay To." --Tommy Right, they say different things because they are different kinds of instruments.. But that doesn't lead to what David is saying. BTW Tommy, I understand where Lance is coming from when he says that banks act as agents in the case of PMOs. It's because banks don't own a deposited PMO like they do a deposited check. Therefore, the bank must be acting as an agent for the owner of the PMO and is collecting for the owner. In contrast, for a deposited check the bank is collecting for itself. However, this is not as straightforward as it seems. And I can see that it causes Lance problems, because sometimes he says that banks are acting as agents for the owners of PMO, and other times he says that banks are acting as agents for the Postal Service. Let me explain and you'll see what I mean. First some basics. A "cash item" is an instrument that the bank will give you credit for right away when you cash or deposit it. A "non-cash item" is one that you must wait for to clear before you get your cash. A check can be either a cash item or a non-cash item, depending upon how much the bank trusts you. A PMO is always a cash item. In our debate we are dealing only with cash items. A negotiable instrument is one that can be legally transferred to another person. Checks are negotiable. A transfer is made my endorsing the item over to another person. PMOs are negotiable just once. That is because of the one-endorsement rule for PMOs. The original owner can deposit the PMO or can transfer it to someone else by endorsing it. After that, no more transfers are allowed. But the new owner can deposit it, of course. Now let's look at what happens when you deposit a check as compared to depositing a PMO. When you deposit a check, the bank credits your account immediately. (Remember, we are talking about cash items here.) You in return endorse the check over to your bank and the bank becomes the owner. The bank in turn does the same with the FRB, at which point the FRB is the owner. Now consider a PMO. For this example, assume that somebody first endorses their PMO over to you. (You will see in a moment why I'm doing it this way.) You are now the new owner and the one-endorsement limit has been reached. The PMO is no longer negotiable... there can be no more transfers. You deposit the PMO at your bank. You cannot endorse the PMO over to the bank. The PMO remains yours. Therefore, the bank acts as a collecting agent for you. It collects money from an FRB, and the FRB in turn collects money from the Postal Service (through the Treasury). That seems straight forward enough, doesn't it. In summary: In the case of checks, banks own them and collect for themselves; in the case of PMOs, banks collect as agents for the owners of the PMOs. But there is one problem: When you hand the money order over to the bank, the bank give you the cash immediately. That being the case, how can we say that the bank is acting as an agent on your behalf by collecting the money? You already have the money! In reality what is happening is one of the following two scenarios: 1) The bank loans you the money when you deposit the PMO. Then it collects from the FRB to pay off the loan. or 2) The bank isn't really acting as an agent for the PMO owner. It is acting as an agent for the Postal Service! So when the bank gives you cash for the PMO, they, as agents for the Postal Service, are paying you as though you submitted the PMO directly to the Postal Service. You can see why Lance wants to go with #2, where banks are agents of the Postal Service. It's because that's the solution that doesn't have nasty little loans that need to be repaid. So why does he sometimes revert back to the other model, where the agent acts on behalf of the PMO owner? Apparently he does so because in a case study, U.S. v. Cambridge Trust Company, there is a paragraph that specifically addresses the issue I'm writing about now. And in it, it indicates that banks act as agents for PMO owners, not for the Postal Service. That's the bad news. The good news is that none of this really matters. Because as a practical matter, banks treat PMOs in exactly the same way as they treat checks. As far as the banks and their account holders go, checks and PMOs are no different. (NOTE: There ARE some difference in the way FRBs treat them.) But wait, there is one more bit of bad news. Remember above where I described you depositing a PMO that had been transferred over to you? I did that so I could demonstrate the effect of the one-endorsement rule. The one endorsement rule is what necessitates the need for banks acting as agents. Now consider what happens if you are the original owner of the PMO and you deposit it. I'm not sure about this, but it seems that you should be able to endorse the PMO over to the bank, just like you would a check. You see, that doesn't violate the one-endorsement limit. In this case the bank would treat the PMO just like it would a check. The bank pays you the money and in return owns the PMO. However, this works only with the first bank. After that the PMO cannot be transferred, and any other subsequent holder of the PMO will act as an agent, either for the owner of the PO (the first bank of deposit) or the Postal Service. But again, the good news: In practice none of these subtleties makes any difference. PMOs are simply treated the same way checks are. Period. (Note: The subtleties only come into play when interpreting laws.) Since banks treat PMOs precisely the same way they treat checks, it makes sense to me that they should be bank "endorsed" the same way checks are as well. Legally, the "endorsement" stamp is not really an endorsement. As it states right on PMOs, bank stamps are not regarded as endorsements. They are just bank stamps. But as a practical matter they can be called endorsements. And they are... in Regulation J (in Regulation CC beginning in 1987). Sandy, OK. Thanks. I'll think about it some more after I get some sleep. Hopefully, Lance will have responded to it by then. --Tommy Bumped for Lance. Lance? .....

Paul. I don't know. I can only speculate. Probably up to no good, though. What do you think? "Fingering" Oswald for amateur photographer and Minuteman-from-Saint Paul, Minnesota, the alleged former soldier of Edwin Walker's in Germany, John T(imothy?). Martin (not to be confused with 14-year-old amateur photographer Jim Doyle from Portland, Oregon) ? Giving "moral support" to his protege(?), Oswald? --Tommy

Probably because you're talking about CHECKS and not POSTAL MONEY ORDERS in this example, Sandy. That's why. Big difference. The First National Bank of Chicago very likely handled Postal Money Orders differently (in bulk) than they did checks. Also note that checks say, "Pay To The Order Of" whereas Postal Money Orders say, "Pay To." --Tommy Right, they say different things because they are different kinds of instruments.. But that doesn't lead to what David is saying. BTW Tommy, I understand where Lance is coming from when he says that banks act as agents in the case of PMOs. It's because banks don't own a deposited PMO like they do a deposited check. Therefore, the bank must be acting as an agent for the owner of the PMO and is collecting for the owner. In contrast, for a deposited check the bank is collecting for itself. However, this is not as straightforward as it seems. And I can see that it causes Lance problems, because sometimes he says that banks are acting as agents for the owners of PMO, and other times he says that banks are acting as agents for the Postal Service. Let me explain and you'll see what I mean. First some basics. A "cash item" is an instrument that the bank will give you credit for right away when you cash or deposit it. A "non-cash item" is one that you must wait for to clear before you get your cash. A check can be either a cash item or a non-cash item, depending upon how much the bank trusts you. A PMO is always a cash item. In our debate we are dealing only with cash items. A negotiable instrument is one that can be legally transferred to another person. Checks are negotiable. A transfer is made my endorsing the item over to another person. PMOs are negotiable just once. That is because of the one-endorsement rule for PMOs. The original owner can deposit the PMO or can transfer it to someone else by endorsing it. After that, no more transfers are allowed. But the new owner can deposit it, of course. Now let's look at what happens when you deposit a check as compared to depositing a PMO. When you deposit a check, the bank credits your account immediately. (Remember, we are talking about cash items here.) You in return endorse the check over to your bank and the bank becomes the owner. The bank in turn does the same with the FRB, at which point the FRB is the owner. Now consider a PMO. For this example, assume that somebody first endorses their PMO over to you. (You will see in a moment why I'm doing it this way.) You are now the new owner and the one-endorsement limit has been reached. The PMO is no longer negotiable... there can be no more transfers. You deposit the PMO at your bank. You cannot endorse the PMO over to the bank. The PMO remains yours. Therefore, the bank acts as a collecting agent for you. It collects money from an FRB, and the FRB in turn collects money from the Postal Service (through the Treasury). That seems straight forward enough, doesn't it. In summary: In the case of checks, banks own them and collect for themselves; in the case of PMOs, banks collect as agents for the owners of the PMOs. But there is one problem: When you hand the money order over to the bank, the bank give you the cash immediately. That being the case, how can we say that the bank is acting as an agent on your behalf by collecting the money? You already have the money! In reality what is happening is one of the following two scenarios: 1) The bank loans you the money when you deposit the PMO. Then it collects from the FRB to pay off the loan. or 2) The bank isn't really acting as an agent for the PMO owner. It is acting as an agent for the Postal Service! So when the bank gives you cash for the PMO, they, as agents for the Postal Service, are paying you as though you submitted the PMO directly to the Postal Service. You can see why Lance wants to go with #2, where banks are agents of the Postal Service. It's because that's the solution that doesn't have nasty little loans that need to be repaid. So why does he sometimes revert back to the other model, where the agent acts on behalf of the PMO owner? Apparently he does so because in a case study, U.S. v. Cambridge Trust Company, there is a paragraph that specifically addresses the issue I'm writing about now. And in it, it indicates that banks act as agents for PMO owners, not for the Postal Service. That's the bad news. The good news is that none of this really matters. Because as a practical matter, banks treat PMOs in exactly the same way as they treat checks. As far as the banks and their account holders go, checks and PMOs are no different. (NOTE: There ARE some difference in the way FRBs treat them.) But wait, there is one more bit of bad news. Remember above where I described you depositing a PMO that had been transferred over to you? I did that so I could demonstrate the effect of the one-endorsement rule. The one endorsement rule is what necessitates the need for banks acting as agents. Now consider what happens if you are the original owner of the PMO and you deposit it. I'm not sure about this, but it seems that you should be able to endorse the PMO over to the bank, just like you would a check. You see, that doesn't violate the one-endorsement limit. In this case the bank would treat the PMO just like it would a check. The bank pays you the money and in return owns the PMO. However, this works only with the first bank. After that the PMO cannot be transferred, and any other subsequent holder of the PMO will act as an agent, either for the owner of the PO (the first bank of deposit) or the Postal Service. But again, the good news: In practice none of these subtleties makes any difference. PMOs are simply treated the same way checks are. Period. (Note: The subtleties only come into play when interpreting laws.) Since banks treat PMOs precisely the same way they treat checks, it makes sense to me that they should be bank "endorsed" the same way checks are as well. Legally, the "endorsement" stamp is not really an endorsement. As it states right on PMOs, bank stamps are not regarded as endorsements. They are just bank stamps. But as a practical matter they can be called endorsements. And they are... in Regulation J (in Regulation CC beginning in 1987). Sandy, OK. Thanks. I'll think about it some more after I get some sleep. Hopefully, Lance will have responded to it by then. --Tommy

DVP, Sorry old chap, but it doesn't actually say whether or not cash letters may / should be / must be used by the sending bank when making bulk deposits, it says only that cash items listed in a cash letter may be listed either without a description (i.e., with just the dollar amount, I suppose) or with a description (several kinds of descriptive categories come to mind), and then it goes on to suggest that the latter practice (i.e., with description) be employed for identification and legal purposes in case any problems should arise. That's my "take" on it. --Tommy

Probably because you're talking about CHECKS and not POSTAL MONEY ORDERS in this example, Sandy. That's why. Big difference. The First National Bank of Chicago very likely handled Postal Money Orders differently (in bulk) than they did checks. Also note that checks say, "Pay To The Order Of" whereas Postal Money Orders say, "Pay To." --Tommy

Dear Jim, Excellent review. I'm looking forward to reading the book. --Tommy

Relax, Jim. Shoes aren't rifles. You can't wear shoes that are too small for you, and shoes that are 10% or 12% too big for you don't work very well, either. But you can shoot a carbine or a rifle with pretty much equal results, can't you. A mail order company like Kleins just might send a cheap rifle in lieu of a cheap carbine if they are out of the latter, and hope that the customer is satisfied with it. I mean, the guy's getting "more bang for the buck," literally and figuratively speaking, right? Why do you keep trying to connect me with Trejo, anyway, Jim? Is that your way of trying to "get even"? Have I ever said anything about Edwin Walker's being the mastermind of, or even involved in, the conspiracy? No, I haven't Jim. What's wrong with my being suspicious of Morales anyway, especially since I think I've spotted him monitoring Oswald in New Orleans on 8/09/63? Aren't lots of CTers suspicious of Morales? Aren't you suspicious of Morales, Jim? Have you even read my posts on the "David Morales" thread? Or have you avoided them, out of spite? You're way too emotional, Jim. IMHO. --Tommy

Relax, Jim. I mean. Take some deep breaths. Look at it this way. If Kleins was out of 36" carbines, it was better business practice, for their own profit and customer-satisfaction wise, for them to send Hidell, or whomever, a 40.2" rifle rather than nothing at all. Which wouldn't have been the case if the customer had ordered a 40.2 inch rifle and they had sent him a 36 inch carbine, instead. Sending the customer a letter of explanation and an offer to send a carbine would have been the right thing for them to do in that case. --Tommy

David, Jon is saying a deposit slip (the bulk deposit slip aka "cash letter") doesn't prove that First National Bank of Chicago was actually paid by the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank. --Tommy