David Von Pein
-
Posts
7,873 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David Von Pein
-
-
As usual, James DiEugenio doesn't have the slightest idea how to properly evaluate the sum total of the evidence connected with the various sub-topics associated with the JFK murder case. In this particular instance, Jim has decided that Marrion Baker told a bunch of lies in his Warren Commission testimony and in his 1964 CBS-TV interview.
And Jim believes Officer Baker lied about the lunchroom encounter even though Jim knows about Roy Truly's 11/23/63 affidavit, wherein Truly confirms that both he and Officer Baker saw "Lee Oswald" in the second-floor lunchroom within just a couple of minutes of the assassination.
So now Jim has no choice but to believe that BOTH Marrion L. Baker AND Roy S. Truly were big fat liars when it comes to the topic of their lunchroom encounter with Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963.
DiEugenio probably thinks the above affidavit filled out by Depository Superintendent Roy S. Truly is totally worthless and completely bogus due to the date that is on it -- November 23rd. Jimmy thinks that the fix was in by that time. So that means that anything Roy Truly said on the 23rd must have been the result of coaching by patsy-framing members of the DPD and FBI. Right, James?
As far as Baker saying "Nothing about a Coke" in his 11/22/63 affidavit, that's easy to explain, which I do, RIGHT HERE.
Re: this comment made by DiEugenio....
"And the guy [Marrion Baker] saw does not appear to be Oswald. He was older, heavier and he was wearing a brown jacket."
....as I told Hank Sienzant recently:
"I like to keep this "Assassination Arguments Part 1000" page handy whenever somebody tells me that it would have been utterly impossible for any witness to think Lee Oswald weighed as much as 165 pounds." -- DVP -
Plus, Richard, as I said in my last post, if Baker & Truly were just going to MAKE UP an "encounter" with the person they were trying to frame for JFK's assassination, they would have made the encounter occur on the sixth floor, not the second floor (which was four floors away from the Floor Of Death).
Placing Oswald on the SECOND floor 90 seconds after the murder doesn't do anything to make LHO the patsy in JFK's killing. In fact, most CTers utilize that exact argument to try and get Oswald OFF the hook--not ONTO the hook. Those CTers will tell me -- Well, Dave, we know Oswald must be innocent--because there's no way he could have gotten down from the sixth floor to the second floor in only 90 seconds.
But now, the CTers in the "Baker & Truly Lied About The Lunchroom Encounter" club can never use the above argument ever again, because they think B&T just invented the 2nd-floor incident from whole cloth.
And another oft-heard theory that many CTers must now dump by the roadside is the "Bag Is Too Short" theory. Many Internet CTers now want to pretend that Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle just MADE UP the paper bag story. But it doesn't bother those CTers that Frazier & Randle decided to make their MAKE-BELIEVE BAG too short to hold Oswald's rifle (even though, of course, Buell & Linnie COULD have made their imaginary bag ANY length they wanted to make it).
But such massive illogic regarding the Baker/Truly encounter and the paper bag never even faze a veteran Internet CTer. They'll just pretend the logic gaps don't even exist. Go figure. -
If the whole Baker/Truly "encounter" was nothing but a lie in the first place, then why in hell didn't the Twins Of Deception named Baker & Truly make their lie a much better one by saying they had encountered Oswald on the SIXTH FLOOR?
For Pete sake, even Oswald HIMSELF confirmed the second-floor encounter (WR; Pages 600 and 619).
But I guess both Fritz and Bookhout were liars too, huh?
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm
-
Bob,
Do you REALLY think Marrion Baker AND Roy Truly are telling a pack of lies in these 1964 TV interviews? If so....please tell us WHY you think those two men felt compelled to lie like this on national television? ....
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-rcjDGNFEH_eGtobmZGdmthcW8/view
-
From Oswald's time cards covering everything that morning...
I think it's quite possible that Oswald went to the post office and purchased his money order BEFORE he went to work on March 12th. But other possibilities certainly exist as well, as Gary Mack speculated about in this e-mail to me in 2011:
"True, there's no evidence showing Oswald to have been anywhere but J-C-S that day, but do his time sheets list his working hours AND breaks - including lunch - NO. Of course not, they just show that he was paid to be at J-C-S for a full day.....and he was. As for Oswald's J-C-S times sheet, researcher Mary Ferrell, whom I had great respect for, wrote, "OSWALD'S time sheet for March 12 is evidence that he probably lied sometimes about his hours. On the day he ordered the rifle, he signed in from 8:15 a.m. to 5:15 p.m., (Exhibit no. 1855, Vol. 23, p. 605)." She then wrote that the post office opened at 8am, after noting Harry Holmes' testimony that the envelope was mailed in the early morning. The simple fact that Marina and Marguerite both admitted back then and for years later - I've heard the story directly from both women - that he posed for pictures with the guns he ordered trumps everything else." -- Gary Mack; March 25, 2011
...to the fact that no one admits giving him the rifle...
You expect way too much from the post office clerks eight months after one of them handed a package to a person who was--at the time in March of '63--just one of hundreds of ordinary people who picked up packages at that post office that same day.
...and that the postal regs would not allow him to get the rifle...
Well, Jim, I guess you should really be scolding the bumbling patsy framers--yet again--for still another stupid error on their part. The alleged plotters were trying desperately (from the look of things that you claim are "bogus") to make it look as though Lee Oswald ordered and took possession of Rifle C2766 in March of 1963, and yet they rigged the evidence in such a way so that it would have been impossible (legally) for the patsy to have obtained the "Hidell"-ordered Mannlicher-Carcano through the postal system?
Oh, those brilliant conspirators!
...and every step in between--this evidentiary trail is bogus. Including THE FACT THAT IT'S THE WRONG RIFLE!!
And no matter how many times I point Jimbo to the reasonable explanation which reconciles this "rifle length" discrepancy (linked again below), DiEugenio will still insist the discrepancy has never once been explained in a logical manner. Go figure.
jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html
Jim, don't you think maybe it's time for conspiracy theorists like yourself to finally shed at least a couple of the conspiracy myths that were debunked and/or fully explained in non-conspiratorial ways years ago? Such as your silly "Wrong Rifle" canard.
And the "Postal Zone 12" theory is very likely another myth that should be dumped at sea as well. Here's why....
jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html
-
-
Addendum....
The excerpts from an "early manuscript" of John Armstrong's book that were quoted HERE in an August 2005 forum post written by Jack White include the four paragraphs below about Robert Wilmouth, but there is no source date for any interview done with Wilmouth. All we get is an "according to Wilmouth" declaration by Armstrong. (Ironically, it was Tom Scully who re-posted the Armstrong/White material in 2011. The same Tom Scully who now strongly supports the view that Armstrong is wrong and that the money order is a legitimate document.) ....
[Quoting John Armstrong...]
"Robert Wilmouth, Vice-President in the Operations Department of the First National Bank of Chicago, explained the process after which a postal money order was deposited to his bank (into Klein's account). Wilmouth said that when an item was received by First National, it had to be endorsed on the reverse side with the name and number of the account holder (the Klein's endorsement stamp).
Money order 2,202,130,462, when deposited, should have been routinely stamped and dated by the First National Bank of Chicago (ENDORSEMENT STAMP #1). It would then be sent to the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago where it would again be stamped and dated (ENDORSEMENT STAMP #2). Finally, it would be sent to the central processing center in Kansas City where it would be again stamped and dated (ENDORSEMENT STAMP #3).
The $21.45 money order, according to Wilmouth, should have been stamped and dated by three different banking institutions. But not a single bank endorsement stamp or transaction date appears on either the front or back side of the postal money order. It is clear that postal money order No. 2,202,130,462 was never deposited or cashed by any bank or financial institution.
NOTE: Bank Vice-President Robert Wilmouth was never called to testify before the Commission. Wilmouth most certainly would have pointed out that the money order was never deposited to any financial institution due to a lack of bank endorsement stamps."
[End Quote.] -
From a related discussion in March 2011....
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Please note how the number of LIARS continues to grow upon reading these John Armstrong book excerpts that Jack White posted in 2005.
Start counting up the number of people who surely must be liars in the eyes of the conspiracy mongers when it comes to just the issue of Oswald's money order alone, including the various people from the banking institutions and the post office and the FBI and the Secret Service who saw and/or physically handled the Oswald money order.
The FBI must have been doing a lot of strong-arming at the banks and at Klein's and at the post office regarding JUST this money order thing alone, in order to get various people to say they saw and handled a money order that many conspiracy theorists think is a total fraud.
Another question -- Did the Feds PLANT a fake money order somewhere (after perfectly mimicking Lee Oswald's handwriting on it too, of course--and all within less than 24 hours of the assassination), so that a legitimate banking employee or a post office employee could conveniently "find" it later on? Or did the FBI just MAKE UP all the names of the bank officials and post office people that Jack White mentions in his 2005 post?
I'll reiterate this FACT one more time --- Waldman Exhibit No. 7 (which has never been proven to be a "fake" document by any conspiracy theorist in the world) proves for all time that Klein's received a paid-in-full rifle order from "A. Hidell" of Dallas, Texas (who was really Lee Harvey Oswald, as we all know) in March 1963, and Klein's shipped a rifle with the serial number C2766 on it to Oswald's Dallas mailing address on 3/20/63.
Any other conclusion is pure speculation that is not supported by the known documentary evidence connected with the JFK murder investigation.
~Mark VII~
DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:
Gil Jesus [who started this thread at The Education Forum on March 10, 2011] knows damn well that Oswald ordered, paid for, and was shipped Rifle C2766 from Klein's. He's merely pretending that ALL of the paper trail concerning that rifle purchase is phony/fake/worthless (which would be virtually impossible, given the sheer number of documents and PEOPLE who would have to be "in" on such fakery from the get-go).
The item that demonstrates for all time how completely void of relevance and validity Gil's theory is about the ENTIRE paper trail leading to the rifle is Waldman Exhibit No. 7 -- which (of course) is another document that Gil must pretend is a fraud in order to take that gun out of Lee Oswald's hands.
Waldman No. 7 is the completed order form that was filled out in March of 1963 by the people at Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, and it's a document that includes the important date of "MARCH 13, 1963" at the very top of the document -- which is a stamped date on the order form that indicates, per Klein's Vice President William J. Waldman, that that was the exact date when Oswald's/Hidell's $21.45 money order [signified by the letters "MO" on the same order form, btw] was put through the Klein's cash register, indicating that the PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED from the purchaser, Oswald/"Hidell".
Waldman Exhibit No. 7, all by itself, makes EVERYTHING that Gil Jesus has ever said totally moot and irrelevant concerning his claim that everything associated with Oswald's rifle order is phony/fake/forged.
Why is this so?
Because William Waldman himself testified in front of the Warren Commission while he was looking right at a copy of that completed order form for Oswald's rifle purchase (Waldman #7). And Waldman pointed out, in detail, what all of the various markings and stamps indicated on that document, which is a document that has a "Klein's Sporting Goods" logo in the upper-left corner.
So, unless Gil Jesus (and other conspiracy theorists who also think there's something phony about Oswald's rifle purchase) is prepared to provide some kind of proof that William J. Waldman was lying through his teeth when he talked about all of the details associated with Waldman Exhibit No. 7, then (IMO) Gil Jesus doesn't have a (reasonable) leg to stand on when it comes to the topic of Oswald's rifle order and the money order which paid for that rifle.
David Von Pein
March 6, 2011
March 7, 2011
March 11, 2011
March 16, 2011 -
Robert Wilmouth, Vice President of the First National Bank of Chicago was interviewed by the FBI on 11/23/63, but was never asked if the unpaid $21.45 postal money order was deposited to his bank.
The above quote by Armstrong is totally misleading, as proven by the last part of my last post, where I quoted from CD7 (aka CD75). Let me repeat....
"Robert K. Wilmouth...furnished the following information...A deposit made with the bank on March 15, 1963, by Klein's Sporting Goods...was processed by the bank on March 16, 1963. .... The other item of $21.45 was a Postal Money Order which was sent to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago on March 16, 1963."
[End Quote.]
I wonder what John Armstrong thinks Wilmouth meant when he said the $13,000 Klein's deposit (which, of course, almost certainly included the $21.45 Hidell PMO, per the available information provided by Bill Waldman and Waldman Exhibit No. 10) "was processed by the bank on March 16, 1963"?
I guess Armstrong must think the word "processed" means something completely different from the word "deposited".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CD 7 / CD 75.....
-
A replay from earlier in this thread....
DAVID JOSEPHS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
David Josephs,
That CD7 document isn't the document that Lance Payette wants to see. The document that (apparently) John Armstrong was using to support what he said on page 451 of his book "Harvey And Lee" indicates (per Armstrong) that Wilmouth gave an interview saying that a Postal Money Order would have to be stamped FOUR different times in order to be legitimate.
The CD7 document doesn't say anything about Wilmouth talking about the alleged "four bank stamps".
But if that CD7 document is actually the document that Armstrong is using to prop up his theory that money orders require FOUR different endorsement stamps, then he has significantly misled his readers, because that FBI report in CD7 doesn't say anything at all about how many endorsements (if any) should be affixed to U.S. Postal Money Orders.
(The document seen in the CD7 link, btw, is exactly the same as CD75, which is the document that I've been linking to many times during this discussion.)
But, as mentioned multiple times previously, the CD7 / CD75 FBI document does pretty much debunk all of the nonsense about the Hidell money order being a phony document. Here's what we find in that FBI report (emphasis is my own):
"Robert K. Wilmouth, Vice-President, Operations Department, The First National Bank of Chicago, Clark and Monroe Streets, furnished the following information...A deposit made with the bank on March 15, 1963, by Klein's Sporting Goods...was processed by the bank on March 16, 1963. .... The other item of $21.45 was a Postal Money Order which was sent to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago on March 16, 1963." -
More miscellaneous thoughts....
The File Locator Number is the PROOF that the Hidell CE788 money order made it through the banking system, and therefore also provides enough proof (at least for me and all other reasonable people) that the money order was handled and processed by the First National Bank of Chicago, which was the only other bank involved in this transaction. And we know that First National did handle the M.O., regardless of whether they placed any markings on the document or not, because FNB Vice President Bob Wilmouth told the FBI on 11/23/63 that his bank had received and processed the $13,000+ deposit from Klein's. And that deposit included a Postal Money Order in the amount of $21.45. (Do conspiracists REALLY think that the $21.45 PMO referred to by Wilmouth in Commission Document 75 was some OTHER money order instead of the "Hidell" M.O.? Come now.)
So the only way a "File Locator Number" gets stamped on that money order is if it had ALSO been handled by the First National Bank of Chicago and then sent to the FRB in Chicago.
The question that conspiracy theorists need to ask themselves now is ---
How did the 138 4159796 File Locator Number manage to get on the Hidell money order if it wasn't put there by a member of the Federal Reserve Bank?
As I've mentioned multiple times before, the authenticity of the CE788 money order has pretty much come full circle now — from the Dallas Post Office, to Oswald, to Klein's, to First National Bank in Chicago, to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and then to the storage facility at the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia. Plus, the "bleed-thru" question has also been thoroughly and logically explained in a non-conspiratorial way by Tim Brennan on 12/5/15. So the CTers can't continue to use the "bleeding" as an excuse to pretend the M.O. is phony.
It's hard to beat a "full circle" of authenticity like that one (even without a single FNB stamp adorning the back of the PMO). Conspiracy theorists, however, will no doubt continue to bellyache about the lack of any First National Bank markings on the money order — but the File Locator Number, along with Robert Wilmouth's 11/23/63 FBI interview which provides the verification that FNB in Chicago had the Hidell PMO in their possession in March of 1963, are things that effectively diminish the CTer whining to the mere whimpering of a defeated opponent who simply refuses to come to grips with the proven fact that the U.S. Postal Money Order known as Warren Commission Exhibit No. 788 is a genuine and legitimate piece of evidence that was used by Lee Harvey Oswald to purchase the rifle that ultimately killed President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. -
Thanks, Lance.
(My migraine is coming back. Just in time for Christmas too. Oh, joy!)
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1960_04928.pdf
-
For one, we have the actual FRB requirements as spelled out in their operational circulars. There is no mention of allowing banks to do what you are suggesting. Not for PMOS, not for checks.
FWIW....
From the 1960 regulations:
And:
Replaying an earlier DVP comment....
To reiterate, a "cash letter" for a bulk deposit would, in my view, still satisfy the regulation cited below, without the First National Bank personnel needing to place multiple separate stamped endorsements on each and every U.S. Postal Money Order that was part of such a "bulk" deposit/transfer.
If the bulk transfer from First National Bank to the Federal Reserve Bank was accompanied by a slip of paper that had all the stamped endorsements and information mentioned in Rule 13 (from the 1960 regulations) or Rule 15 (from the 1969 regulations), please tell me why that would not satisfy the endorsement policy?
Maybe we can now get into a big debate over the words "All cash items" vs. the words "Each cash item".
It seems to me that a bulk transfer, which would include just one piece of paper (i.e., deposit slip) for the entire "batch" of money orders being sent to the FRB (i.e., for "ALL cash items" within the bundled bulk package), would be a way of transferring a large amount of money orders from FNB to the FRB without violating anything written in this regulation here....
"All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to, or to the order of, the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to, or to the order of, any bank, banker, or trust company, or endorsed with equivalent words or abbreviations thereof. The endorsement of the sender should be dated and should show the A.B.A. transit number of the sender, if any, in prominent type on both sides of the endorsement."
-
It makes a lot of sense. But there is no indication (that I have seen) that it was ever done that way.
But how can we (or anybody) possibly KNOW for certain it was never done that way in circa 1963? The ONLY example of a photograph showing a U.S. Postal Money Order that has been (allegedly) cashed, deposited, and fully processed in circa 1963 is the CE788 "Hidell" money order.
So we've got ONE single example to go by. And nothing more.
And since there are so MANY things that exist on that same money order that are telling me that the document is a legitimate one that was handled by Oswald and by Klein's and by the FRB and by the post office in Dallas on March 12, 1963 .... well, what should I do?
Should I merely pretend that ALL of those things that should be there (and ARE there) on the money order are fake? Or should I do a small bit of "assuming" and conclude that First National Bank in Chicago just maybe had a way of handling U.S. Postal Money Orders in early 1963 that eliminated the necessity of placing stamped markings on each and every one of them?
(Guess which option I'm going to embrace.)
-
No, David, the solution that makes most sense, is that the money order was faked.
Live with it.
Good. We're now up to two Edu. Forum members who embrace miracles.
Thanks for the confirmation on your part, Ray.
-
Bulk deposits like that have been made for at least the last fifty years. (Much longer than that, but I mean with the technology of the 1960s in place.) And checks are still being individually endorsed. So you're not making a good argument. Plus you haven't shown anything that indicates that bulk deposits didn't require individual bank stamps. You're just speculating it to be the case... and that is in spite of the evidence showing otherwise.
But it's a solution to the "problem" that makes the most sense, IMO.
IF a United States Postal Money Order DID require the BOFD (Bank of First Deposit) to stamp the money order after the BOFD handled and processed it in circa 1963 (and I don't think anyone has established beyond all doubt that such stamps from the BOFD were definitely required when it comes to U.S. Postal Money Orders), then one of the following options must certainly be true....
The First National Bank employee(s) in Chicago had a massive brain cramp on 3/16/63 when they definitely DID process the Hidell money order (see CD75 again) but decided NOT to place a single individual stamp on the front or back sides of the Hidell M.O. (even though, per Sandy Larsen, they were definitely required to do so).
or:
The Hidell money order was faked by unknown conspirators in an effort to make it look as though Lee Harvey Oswald had purchased a 6.5-millimeter Italian carbine from Klein's Sporting Goods in March 1963.
And if that last option is the accurate solution, then we must accept the idea, as previously suggested in this discussion, that the person or persons who faked the M.O. were members of the "BRILLIANT ONE MINUTE AND TOTAL BOOBS THE NEXT" fraternity, because "they" faked the File Locator Number AND Oswald's handwriting AND the two post office bank stamps AND the Klein's "50 91144" stamp to utter perfection....but then they just FORGOT about all of those multiple stamped markings that Sandy Larsen says should definitely be present on the front and back sides of the money order that the unknown "they" were manufacturing as a patsy-framing device.
And I think that even you, Sandy, have expressed your opinion about how UNlikely the "patsy-framing device" scenario I just laid out above would be to accept.
But it's nice to know, via this post, that conspiracy theorist extraordinaire David Josephs does, in fact, believe in miracles. That's a handy piece of information to have (just for future reference). Thanks, David J.
Also (FWIW)....
Let me repeat something that Tim Nickerson posted many days ago, which is a Q&A exchange that someone had with a representative of BankersOnline.com:
Question:
If a check is payable to John Smith and Mary Smith, Settlers and Trustees of The John and Mary Smith Revocable Living Trust, is it sufficient to endorse the check with "For Deposit Only" and an account number? There are no markings or stamps on the back of the check from the depositary bank.
Answer:
That endorsement would be sufficient as long as it was deposited into a like-named account. The BOFD has provided you a warranty that this has happened and if it did not, you have recourse through the BOFD.
First published on BankersOnline.com 7/23/12 ----> CLICK HERE.
-
A "Money Order Timeline" summary....
Please note that there is solid evidence to support every step of the Hidell money order's journey --- from the post office in Dallas all the way to the document's final resting place at the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia (just outside Washington, D.C.)....
1.) The Dallas "G.P.O." Post Office handled the CE788 "Hidell" money order --- via the two stamps applied to the M.O. at the post office (i.e., the "Dallas, Tex.; G.P.O.; Mar. 12, 1963" stamp and the "$21.45" stamp that appear on the money order).
2.) The purchaser, Lee Harvey Oswald, handled the money order --- via the fact that Oswald's handwriting is on the document.
3.) Klein's Sporting Goods Company handled the money order --- via the Klein's "Pay To The Order Of The First National Bank Of Chicago" stamp on the back of the M.O.
4.) The First National Bank of Chicago handled the money order in question --- via the FBI interview with First National Bank Vice President Robert Wilmouth on November 23, 1963 [see CD75]. In that interview, Wilmouth verified that his bank received a $13,827.98 deposit from Klein's on 3/15/63, which contained a U.S. Postal Money Order in the amount of 21 dollars and 45 cents. Wilmouth also verified that the subject money order was sent to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago on March 16, 1963.
5.) The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago handled the Hidell money order --- via the presence on the document of the ten-digit "File Locator Number" in the upper left corner, which is a number that is stamped on a money order (or check) only after it has reached a Federal Reserve Bank for processing.
6.) And the CE788 money order was recovered on November 23, 1963, by employees of the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia, which is precisely where approximately 75% of the U.S. Postal Money Orders were being sent for storage by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in March of 1963 [see CD75, Page 669].
Now, if ALL of the above things are fake, fraudulent, or just a bunch of lies, then I think we can all agree that miracles are, indeed, possible. -
Could the ABA number be the number specified on the Klein's stamp ("50 91144") right under the bank name?
William Waldman testified that that number was the Klein's "account number". Whether or not some of those numbers signify "ABA transit numbers", I have no idea....
Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 788, which appears to be a U.S. postal money order payable to the order of Klein's Sporting Goods, and marked that it's from a purchaser named A. Hidell, and as the purchaser's street address is Post Office Box No. 2915, and the purchaser's City, Dallas, Tex.; March 12, 1963: and underneath the amount of $21.45, the number 2,202,130,462. And on the reverse side there appears to be an endorsement of a bank. I wonder if you would read that endorsement, if you would, and examine it, please.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is a stamped endorsement reading "Pay to the order of the First National Bank of Chicago," followed by our account No. 50 space 91144, and that, in turn, followed by "Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc."
Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not that is your company's endorsement on that money order?
Mr. WALDMAN. It's identical to our endorsement.
-
But, Hank, it also says this in that very same paragraph of the regulation....
"The endorsement of the sending bank should be dated and should show the American Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent type on both sides."
None of which is found on the CE788 Hidell money order.
But it's very likely (IMO) that the Hidell M.O. was part of a bulk transfer of postal money orders which was accompanied by a cash letter (deposit ticket), which very likely did have those stamps on it (i.e., the date and the ABA transit numbers).
To believe the Hidell M.O. is fraudulent at this stage in this lengthy thread/discussion is silly, especially when we KNOW it was found just exactly where it should have been found in Alexandria/Washington.
And we also have information in CD75 coming from a First National Bank Vice President (Wilmouth) verifying that First National DID handle the $21.45 Postal Money Order in question.
How many more years will conspiracy theorists completely ignore these important paragraphs found in Commission Document No. 75? .... -
You still can't see how the the word "appear" affects the meaning of a sentence?
If the word "appears" is used in a sentence, then the word "factual" should not be used in association with that same sentence, IMO. Because something that merely "appears" to be true is not definitive enough to be labelled "factual". Such as this sentence:
It appears that Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald as part of a conspiracy to silence Oswald.
The above statement is not "factual" at all. It's simply speculation.
Anyway, the quote from John Armstrong that started this mini-debate over the word "factual" is the quote repeated below, which is most definitely not a "factual" claim (and never was)---even though Sandy seems to think otherwise for some odd reason. Nor is the bleed-thru a "strong indication" that the Hidell M.O. was made out of thinner paper stock (and Cadigan No. 11 proves it's not a "strong indication" of that)....
"The "bleed-thru" of the ink is a strong indication that postal money order 2,202,130,462, shown as CE 788, was not original card stock." -- John Armstrong
-
But tell me where in my sentence here that I am stating something that is not factual:
"The money order appears to have been printed on regular paper, not card stock."
Is that factual or not?
No. Of course it's not "factual". You MUST be kidding. It's merely speculation and guesswork.
David,
"On a clear day, the air above us appears to be blue."
Is that statement factual or not?
Am I making a claim that the air is blue?
Is the statement speculation?
Is the statement misleading ?
The AIR is blue?
LOL
-
Yeah, I know, Tommy. But even with the word "appears" in the sentence, I would still argue that the word "factual" does not apply to such a speculative sentence.
FACTUAL signifies PROOF.
"APPEARS" signifies GUESSWORK/CONJECTURE.
(IMHO.)
(YMMV.)
Member FDIC.
May contain peanuts.
-
"The money order appears to have been printed on regular paper, not card stock."
Is that factual or not?
No. Of course it's not "factual". You MUST be kidding. It's merely speculation and guesswork.
And based on what we have since learned by looking at Cadigan Exhibit 11, your quote above, concerning what the money order "appears" to be made out of, is not only NOT "factual" at all --- it's 100% dead wrong.
FACTUAL:
adj.
1. Of the nature of fact; real.
2. Of or containing facts.
adj.
1. of or pertaining to facts.
2. based on facts.
-
Armstrong also wasn't lying when he said essentially the same thing. He made that especially clear when he said that the bleed-thru needed an explanation.
I never said Armstrong was "lying". Why did you use that word, Sandy?
Armstrong was just simply wrong. But I never claimed he was lying.
But you, Sandy, were certainly also wrong when you used the word "factual" in this statement a little while ago....
"No claim was made by Armstrong other than the bleed-thru appearing to show that CE 788 was not original card stock. And the claim was factual at the time."
....because such a "claim" about the bleed-thru topic was most certainly NEVER "factual". It was merely an unsupportable theory and nothing more.
One Last Thing Before Xmas Eve: 2nd Floor Lunch Room Encounter
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by David Von Pein
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
A guy who weighs 141 pounds would never be said to weigh 165.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Tell that to Marrion L. Baker of the Dallas Police Department, Garry....
"The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds." -- M.L. Baker; November 22, 1963
Let me guess, Garry --- Marrion Baker wasn't really describing the real Lee Harvey Oswald when he said the man he stopped at gunpoint in the Depository's second-floor lunchroom weighed "165 pounds", right? You think Baker was either lying or he was describing somebody besides Oswald (despite the fact Roy Truly, who was right there in the lunchroom with Baker during the encounter, confirmed it was Lee Oswald). Right?
Let's hear the CTers' lame, rip-roaring, half-baked excuse for totally dismissing these words written by Roy Truly on 11/23/63:
"The officer and I went through the shipping department to the freight elevator. We then started up the stairway. We hit the second floor landing, the officer stuck his head into the lunch room area where there are Coke and candy machines. Lee Oswald was in there. The officer had his gun on Oswald and asked me if he was an employee. I answered yes." -- Roy S. Truly; November 23, 1963
http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx11OYBTDZ9DDNL&cdMsgNo=1022&cdPage=41&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3S6UAIF5802TL#Mx11OYBTDZ9DDNL