Thomas Graves

bumped

I'm not trying to be the winner, Tommy. I'm trying to figure out why you choose the least logical of two choices. I have read everything Lance has posted on the thread and have responded to it. Dear Sandy, Due to your admirable natural shyness and humility, I guess I'll just have to declare you "the winner." By my remaining silent on this thread, everyone should assume that you indeed are "the winner." Congratulations! By the way, have you got any photos of early 1960's postal money orders? Any at all? --Tommy As I said, I don't want to be the winner. I just want to understand why you pick the less likely of two choices. I'll assume by your non-response that you don't want to reveal why you do that regarding the postal money order. Dear Sandy, You have my permission to assume anything you want to. I recommend, however, that you not assume that I am particularly intelligent, as you may have implied in another thread entitled "What Makes Tommy Tick?" --Tommy

While I agree with you, you don't know for a fact that Tommy used his own computer to make his post. Exactly, Duncan! I was at the library, and I still am! LOL --Tommy And my computer, which I left at home, just might be missing. I don't know if it is or not because I'm not there. And Greg does live in San Diego. Hmmm. Maybe I should hurry home and see if my cat "Schrodinger" is alive or dead, I mean I mean I mean .... if my computer is there or not.

Dear Sandy, Although you are trying to put words in my mouth, I suggest that you declare yourself the winner. You'll be much happier that way. Discerning members will realize, however, that it all revolves around the legal concept of agency, as Lance so eloquently explained. Perhaps you should re-read (or just read for the first time) his most recent post. Can't find any photos of early 1960's postal money orders? The ball is still in your court, whether you realize it or not. --Tommy I'm not trying to be the winner, Tommy. I'm trying to figure out why you choose the least logical of two choices. I have read everything Lance has posted on the thread and have responded to it. Dear Sandy, Due to your admirable natural shyness and humility, I guess I'll just have to declare you "the winner." By my remaining silent on this thread, everyone should assume that you indeed are "the winner." Congratulations! By the way, have you got any photos of early 1960's postal money orders? Any at all? --Tommy

Dear Sandy, Although you are trying to put words in my mouth, I suggest that you declare yourself the winner. You'll be much happier that way. Discerning members will realize, however, that it all revolves around the legal concept of agency, as Lance so eloquently explained. Perhaps you should re-read (or just read for the first time) his most recent post. Can't find any photos of early 1960's postal money orders? The ball is still in your court, whether you realize it or not. --Tommy

Dear Sandy, You're asking me to prove a negative, which is next to impossible to do, especially in the context of the JFK assassination, fraught with allegations of forgery and alteration as it is, I therefore respectfully decline your offer. It logically should be much easier for you to prove the positive, i.e. that postal money orders in 1963 required an endorsement or a dated bank stamp, by posting here some photographs of 1963 postal money orders which do have said endorsements / indorsements or bank stamps. The ball is in your court, Sandy. Has been for a long time. --Tommy

I’m not going to get sucked back into this goofiness even if John Armstrong appears with his toy cannon blazing, but I would merely point out: There is a legal maxim: When the law is against you, argue the facts; when the facts are against you, argue the law; when both are against you, scream and pound the table. We seemingly can modify this for assassination debates along the lines of, When you have had your butt kicked up one side and down the other, keep starting new threads on the same topic and hope the old threads will be overlooked. For those who just can’t get enough of this stuff, the legal aspects of Postal Money Orders are nicely summarized in a 1967 article, Legal Aspects of Postal Money Orders, in the Cornell Law Review: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3600&context=clr. The original post assumes the very point in dispute – i.e., that Postal Money Orders did, in fact, require endorsements or bank stamps. If you cannot see this, you truly have gone off the cliff. I do not see that the original post adds one thing to what has been rehashed ad nauseam in previous threads. The original post is simply not accurate. As the above article notes at page 370, when a bank customer such as Klein’s deposited a Postal Money Order, the bank was acting as an agent, not a purchaser of the Postal Money Order. As we have shown on previous threads – not by guessing, but through Federal Reserve and Treasury Department circulars and regulations – the paying bank for a Postal Money Order is the Postal Service; the regional Federal Reserve Bank serves as the collection agent for the Postal Service pursuant to an agreement with the Postmaster General. When a local Federal Reserve member bank receives a Postal Money Order from a customer, it packages the Postal Money Order with other cash items and transmits it to the regional Federal Reserve Bank. The regional Federal Reserve Bank immediately credits the local (presenting) bank and debits the Postal Service’s account at the Treasury Department. When the Treasury Department receives the Postal Money Order, it stamps it with a File Locator Number and places it into storage for the required retention period. In short, the entire transaction is one of agency, entirely unlike the processing of a bank check, and there is simply no need for “endorsement” by the local Federal Reserve member bank, the regional Federal Reserve Bank or the Treasury Department. It appears the desire to preserve the “Money Order mystery” has reached a stage of desperation on the part of proponents of the mystery. Why this should be the case, I really have no idea. Is it that big a deal if John Armstrong has a bit of egg on his face and one of the truly minor supposed mysteries of the assassination has proved to be not so mysterious after all? I love statements like, “What's amazing is that the Warren Commission, with all of its elite staff attorneys, never delved into the payment chain of the Hidell PMO, which would have been readily available to them. The only rational explanation as to why they didn't delve is that they didn't want to uncover the truth. What's amazing too is that neither the HSCA nor the ARRB delved into the payment chain.” I would submit “the only rational explanation” is that the deposit stamp and File Locator Number made clear to everyone that the Klein’s Postal Money Order was processed precisely as it should have been. Oh, I forgot – the phrase “rational explanation” is a term of art in the JFK assassination community, meaning “an explanation tending to support an exotic conspiracy theory, no matter how irrational said explanation may seem to those who are not wedded to said conspiracy theory.” I would further submit that the existence of the File Locator Number and the fact that the Postal Money Order was located precisely where it should have been after the assassination have shifted the burden to the proponents of the mystery to come forth with evidence approximately as compelling as that which would be required to establish there are fairies and unicorns frolicking in their gardens. Lance, Another excellent post by an astute researcher and highly-articulate member. Thanks for continuing to contribute here and for showing us that in 1963 postal money orders did not require endorsements or bank stamps. --Tommy

Dear Forum Members, Not that it matters one whit now that highly-respected James and Larry have chimed in, but am I the only person who can see the scar above Morales' left eye in two or three of the photos I posted of him??? (In "rebuttal" to James' photo of Morales which appears to show what he looked like several years after 1963, all I can say is that maybe he had that scar above (and on) his left eyebrow removed by a plastic surgeon. After all, we do know that at some point E. Howard Hunt had his ears changed...) And the thin, brown, shiny leather camera strap around "Neck Scratcher's" neck? And Neck Scratcher's unusual, partially-white fingers? Can anyone else see the back of Morales' white index finger in the photo of him taking with those two Vietnamese guys in Vietnam? Just wondering. --Tommy PS It's interesting to note that Nestor Izquierdo also had those unusual, partially-white fingers like Neck Scratcher's. http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKizquierdo.htm

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. In other words, Paul Trejo assumes he knows what certain people believed and did? --Tommy

Jon, Winston Churchill was quite good at it, too. Overheard at a party: Lady: "Winston, you're drunk!" Winston: "You are correct, madam. But tomorrow morning I'll be sober, and you'll still be ugly." Or words to that effect... --Tommy

Mr. Jonathan Gardner Tidd, When you post your school pictures from 50's on then we to may see doubles also. Are you are two people, Tidd 1 and Tidd 2,... see how silly that sounds? Unless a full head of hair going by the name Gardner Tidd is lurking about? Are you saying you viewed one Bronx Zoo photo and then claimed it an Oswald double? Impressive Jon!! Eye glass cleaner not doing the job? It does sound rather ignorant on the surface now doesn't it Jon, two or so Oswald's, a couple Marguerites,,, its more like a drink list at a local liquor retailer? Are you basing Harvey and Lee being two distinct individuals on a few bad military records and a NYC photo? Or is there more? Because if you have not been keeping up, H&L has literally been made into confetti Jon. What solid evidence do you have left Mr. Tidd? It appears it has turned to sand in your very hands chum. This Bronx photo comes at a time when one of Ruth Paine's family ties are helping operate a youth house there. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21803 ...Carry on... Dear Ed, Like you, I don't believe in Harvey and Lee. I can, however, recognize Jon G. Tidd in his class 1963 fraternity photo. Same nose, same ears, same face. Taking into considerations the many years difference in the two photos, the glasses, the beard, and the lack of hair in the more recent photos are all non-issues. IMHO, you are very insulting to Mr. Tidd with your asinine statements and rhetorical questions. Sincerely, --Tommy

Still plenty of words posted here.... Has anyone actually found a First National Bank of Chicago endorsement or an FRB endorsement on the Magic Money Order for the Magic Rifle? Sandy Larsen has demonstrated many times that bank stamps were required on processed Postal Money Orders in the early 1960s. Where are they on the alleged payment for the rifle that allegedly killed President Kennedy? Can anyone find ANY bank endorsement on this so-called money order? Please, Hank Sienzant, show me an actual endorsement from an actual bank... not a rubber stamp allegedly from Kleins. Have you found a real bank endorsement? Where is it? Relax, Jim. Take some deep breaths. In through the nose, out through the mouth, in through the nose, out through the mouth... --Tommy

Scott, Your post is in response to what? --Tommy, the Serious 50 Reasons for 50 years Episode 4 That's great, Scott. The only reason I posted 50 Reasons for 50 Years episode #04 here is because it's the only thing I know that has the Jim Doyle footage (of Oswald's arrest in New Orleans on 8/09/63) in it. Which I think is important because I believe that the "Neck Scratcher" in it (coming in from the left at 3:55) is David Sanchez Morales. --Tommy, the Serious

Scott, Your post is in response to what? --Tommy, the Serious

Tall, dark-complected, athletically-built (a football star in high school according to his buddy Ruben Carbajal) David Sanchez Morales is not visible in the Zapruder film to my knowledge, but I think he might be visible (wearing a grey suit and standing with his back to the camera) in the crowd in front of the TSBD several minutes after the assassination. I also believe Morales was monitoring Oswald's leafleting activity in New Orleans in August, 1963, and was "captured" on film by 16-year-old Jim Doyle during the arrest-of-Oswald-incident. If anyone is interested, I think Morales is the guy who walks into the scene from the left, scratching his neck the whole time (to hide the fact that he was "packing" from the camera?), and watches Oswald (wearing his placard on his chest) walk past him to Morales' left. This short Morales-and-Oswald scene starts at 3:55 in this Black Op Radio video: .Interestingly, Garrison "investigator" Richard Billing wrote about a gray suit-wearing "Spanish trace / shepherd" whom Bringuier and his buddies noticed monitoring and taking photos of Oswald that day. http://www.jfk-online.com/billings4.html I'm trying to determine if Morales had an inch-long scar on or above his left eyebrow. [...] --Tommy bumped Bumped for David Healy. I suggest that you read the whole thread from post # 14, on.

Small correction, Jim. Sylvia was working on recruitment for electronic maintenance personnel - not pilots for the FICON project - one of two or three of pre-U2 overflight programs. To me, that's even more telling. The summary report of the work done shows the team had a special interest in radar operations.... the report was finalized a month prior to Lee joining the USMC and requesting training in electronic maintenance. Keep in the back of your mind that I showed in volume one, the distinct possibility that the Hydes and Ekdahls knew each other. Both living in New York in 1940, both involved in cooperative movements and both supporters of John Dewey and Norman Thomas... Greg, Mr. DiEugenio is a very highly-esteemed historian. Historians of his caliber do not make mistakes or "spin" the truth. LOL --Tommy

I too remember watching Ruby shoot Oswald, and as I recall my thought was that somebody gave him what he deserved. Didn't everybody want to shoot him? I was really on the ball in those days. The dirty rat.

Wouldn't be interesting if Oswald had faked those photos, himself. and intentionally made them obviously fake so he could point to them later, if necessary, and say, "Look! They're fake!" --Tommy, the Serious

Certainly not, Mr. Graves. But it does mean that I'm not making it up! Regards, --Paul Trejo Dear Mr. Trejo, So you're admitting that Ruth might have been lying under oath? Or that she might have somehow been mistaken about Mrs. Kloepfer's linguistic abilities? But, how could that be? --Tommy, the Serious

Actually, Greg, I didn't make that up. Ruth Paine testified that Mrs. Ruth Klopfer spoke Russian. Your insults therefore have no impact. I'm repeating sworn testimony by Ruth Paine. I'm familiar with all of her eight appearances before the Warren Commission. Evidently, you aren't. Regards, --Paul Trejo Dear Mr. Trejo, Just because Ruth Paine testified that Mrs Kloepfer spoke Russian, does that mean it's true? --Tommy, the Serious

Ruanne Klppfer was one of the daughters of Mrs. Ruth Klopfer, who visited the Oswalds in NOLA at the request of Ruth Paine. Ruth Paine was concerned that Marina Oswald, now eight months pregnant, was lonely because she knew nobody else in NOLA who could speak Russian except LHO. So, when Ruth arrived in NOLA on 20 September 1963, she called the Quaker Church in NOLA seeking friends who spoke Russian to offer Marina some normal social interaction. There were no Quakers in NOLA who could speak Russian, but one of them knew a Unitarian lady who spoke Russian. So, Ruth called her -- it was Mrs. Ruth Klopfer. Ruth Paine asked Mrs. Klopfer for an act of Christian charity -- simply to visit a lonely person and offer her some normal hospitality. Mrs. Klopfer agreed, and also brought along her two college-age daughters, one of whom had been to the USSR recently on a scholarship, and had a scrapbook of photographs to share. The Klopfer family visited the Oswalds for about an hour. According to the testimony of Ruth Paine, LHO was the host of the party, and had gone shopping for snacks and drinks for them, and personally served them all. LHO engaged in the Russian conversation as well. Ruth Paine was impressed at the good manners of LHO -- he actually had some social graces. For one thing, said Ruth Paine, LHO commented on almost every photograph in the daughter's scrapbook. (I don't know if that was Ruanne or her sister.) He would say things like, "We've been to that site, haven't we Marina?" and "Oh, we remember that!" Ruth Paine changed her attitude about LHO on that day. She had thought of LHO as a sullen boor until that day, and she suddenly saw hope on the horizon. LHO was clearly grateful for the help that Ruth Paine was offering them that September -- to register Marina Oswald at Parkland Hospital in Dallas in their Maternity Ward program. LHO showed his gratitude by being the "perfect host," if not to the Klopfers, then certainly to Ruth Paine, who remarked to the Warren Commission about LHO's major change in attitude that week. Ruth says little more about that party, so we don't know how the full hour developed. Very possibly Marina Oswald spent more time with Mrs. Klopfer, who spoke Russian more fluently than her daughters. It is not impossible that the party broke up with the older women in the kitchen, and LHO leering at the teenager girls. It is equally possible that LHO's fawning over "every photograph in her scrapbook" might have been misinterpreted by one of the daughters as flirting. We don't know for sure. What is important, though, isn't so much whether LHO was remembered fondly by the Klopfers, but only that Ruth Paine's testimony holds up under scrutiny. PROBE magazine authors have opined that Ruth Klopfer was an FBI agent, helping Ruth Paine to isolate Marina from LHO. Nothing of the kind. Regards, --Paul Trejo Marina could speak English much better than she let on. Probably better than Ruth could speak Russian. Just like my first girlfriend in the Czech Republic. She learned a lot about me just listening to me in English conversation with her then-boyfriend (a Czech guy, whom I'd befriended in La Jolla a few years earlierand who was visiting her again after a long stay in the U.S.). No reason for Marina to be lonely, unless she wanted to pretend to be. --Tommy, the Serious

Dear Robert, What, specifically, do you not like about the evidence Richard has provided? Are you able to articulate that? --Tommy, the Serious bumped for "Sleepy Head" Prudhomme

Really? (Didn't get enough sleep last night? Again?)

Dear Robert, What, specifically, do you not like about the evidence Richard has provided? Are you able to articulate that? --Tommy, the Serious

Dear Mr. Tidd, How do you know that the transaction's paper trail is flawed? How do you know that it wasn't the perfectly natural paper trail of a normal transaction? Because it seems suspicious? --Tommy