David G. Healy

And yet another worthless and vapid contribution from the keyboard of David G. Healy. (Gee, what a shocker.)

Why waste the bandwidth, Healy? Or is there now a statute on the books in your town of Conspiracyville, U.S.A., that requires you to follow me around everywhere I go like a Chihuahua?

It's not a tough job keepin' and reminding lone neuter's honesty is the best policy. In fact, it's quite easy considering the horrible position the 1964 WCR currently holds, worthless fabrication comes to mind...

Perhaps you're jealous my single contribution to the JFK assassination publishing community worked out quite a bit better than your 2 feeble attempts, right? And those books you promote, those didn't work out well for ya either, did they? But you tried.

Consider this DVP, arrogance is NOT your best buddy...

ALBERT DOYLE SAID:

[sandy] Larsen has a done a good job of showing the 1960 Regulations required a bank number and date stamp. He also cited the same in the 1969 Regulations, so that means they applied in 1963 as well.

CRAIG LAMSON SAID:

Actually all he did is prove it was not a requirement. The salient word here is SHOULD. Not shall or must.

Larsen failed and you just did too.

ALBERT DOYLE SAID:

Obviously just a denier trying to get the most out of semantics as possible against the obvious.

[...]

As far as I see it, nobody has yet topped Larsen's citation of the Federal Bank Regulation 'Circular' showing Money Orders had to have a bank number and date stamp according to the rules.

CRAIG LAMSON SAID:

The word "SHOULD" in this case is not just semantics.

Why don't you research it in a legal context. Or would that destroy your carefully constructed fantasy?

TIM NICKERSON SAID:

Sandy Larsen, over on the ED Forum, says that he has shown that bank endorsements were indeed required on PMOs. He's wrong and I don't see where anyone has pointed that out to him.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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."

And I'd like to again remind everyone of Regulation #12 (from 1960):

TIM NICKERSON SAID:

David,

If we're going to get into a debate over the words "All cash items" vs. the word "Each", then perhaps we could add the words "should", "shall", and "must" into the mix as well.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, Tim, I agree.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12852.msg411727.html#msg411727

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12923.msg412477.html#msg412477

Hey Nutter's is this the only minutiae you can get lost in.... and lo and behold Lampoon Lammie is involved, carrying DVP's water! LMAO! Everything, EVERYTHING in the 1964 WCR is up for grabs... what a cluster-****

Thank you Earl Warren and Mr. Allen-CIA-Dulles.

Important Addendum....

Well, Sandy, it looks like you overlooked this important part of those 1969 regulations. Let's look at Section 16 of the regulations....

"16. In the event a cash item is received by a Federal Reserve Bank from a sender without the endorsement thereon of such sender, the Federal Reserve Bank may present, send, or forward the item as if it bore such endorsement, or place on the item the name of such sender and the date of its receipt by the Federal Reserve Bank, or return the item to the sender for proper endorsement by the sender. This Bank makes the warranties stated in Section 210.6(6) of Regula­tion J by presenting, sending, or forwarding a cash item. These warranties arise whether or not such item bears the endorsement of this Bank."

[End Quote.]

The above paragraph makes it quite clear that a bank DOES NOT have to place its endorsement on each and every United States Postal Money Order that it sends to a Federal Reserve Bank.

1969? What does that have to do with 1963?

The Kleins MO is no longer relevant, not worth good Indiana spit when it comes to evidence... Hell, it has no provenance, no chain of custody... and shall I remind you:

<quote on>

From David Talbot:

One of the great ironies of history is that while the media elite was busily trying to shore up public confidence in the Warren Report, the political elites were privately confiding among themselves that the report was a travesty, a fairy tale for mass consumption. Presidents, White House aides, intelligence officials, senators, congressmen, even foreign leaders - they all muttered darkly among themselves that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, a plot that a number of them suspected had roots in the U.S. government itself. (In truth, some high media dignitaries have also quietly shared their doubts about the official version. In 1993, CBS anchorman Dan Rather, who did much along with his network to enforce the party line on Dallas, confessed to Robert Tannenbaum, the former deputy chief counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, "We really blew it on the Kennedy assassination.")

Thanks to tapes of White House conversations that have been released to the public in recent years, we now know that the man who appointed the Warren Commission - President Lyndon Johnson - did not believe its conclusions. On Sept. 18, 1964, the last day the panel met, commission member Sen. Richard Russell phoned Johnson, his old political protégé, to tell him he did not believe the single-bullet theory, the key to the commission's finding that Oswald acted alone. "I don't either," Johnson told him.

http://www.salon.com/2004/09/15/warren/

<quote off>

think Johnson was wondering about a fictious money order at the time?

Book review by Barry Ryder of the U.K.:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R39UNZ3EJHRI25

My favorite highlights....

" 'Prayer Man' begins to wobble and shake as early as page seven.

[...]

Oswald repeatedly told his interrogators that he was variously on the first and second floors of the TSBD during the murder. At no time did Oswald claim that he was 'outside'. Worse still for [sean] Murphy's 'theory' is the plain fact that when questioned by Inspector Thomas Kelly [sic] of the U. S. Secret Service, Oswald said that he did not view the parade. "I asked him [Oswald] if he had viewed the parade and he said he had not." (First interview of Lee Harvey Oswald, p2, last paragraph.) (WCR p 627). How does Murphy deal with this? Simple. He flatly declares on page 182 that [Kelley's] statement is, "..an almost certain interpolation..". In other words, [Kelley] just made it up.

As the book unfolds[,] it becomes clear that Murphy's basic method of identifying Oswald as Prayer Man is his own process of elimination. He seeks to identify as many known people as he can in the photographs and, thus, he 'eliminates' them as candidates. Whoever remains 'unidentified' must be Oswald, he claims. This approach is arbitrary and subjective; it has no scientific merit.

[...]

Murphy attributes all manner of nefarious actions to Truly and Baker and flatly accuses them of lying about where they 'really' encountered Oswald. This method is as old as the hills; everybody involved - except Oswald - was lying. Murphy actually accuses Wes Frazier of lying about Oswald's (supposed) presence in the doorway (p.171). How mad is this?

[...]

The book's author, Stan Dane[,] jumps into the narrative with frequent glee, applauding Murphy's "..reasoning and logic..", which he feels, "..at times borders on genius" (p. 92). He squeals with delight at "Sean Murphy's logic, intellectual curiosity, and exceptional research.." (p. 128). On page 136, Dane notes that,"Sean's like an expert plate-twirler - he's keeping lots of different parts of the story "twirling" simultaneously. " He sure is. The twirling plates seem to have beguiled and bamboozled Dane into a drooling state of sycophancy. Dane actually admits as much on page 215, "I am spellbound by Sean's reasoning and logic here." Yes, Stan, it shows. " Sean is a prophet here." (p 179). "And I say to you, Mr Murphy, what brilliance!" (p 246). It's all rather childish and yucky." -- Barry Ryder; November 29, 2015

http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R39UNZ3EJHRI25

[End Quotes.]

Bravo, Barry.

========================

RELATED LINK....

OSWALD, THE DOORWAY, BOOKHOUT, FRITZ, AND HOSTY:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1052.html

and, of course, old sod Barry gave you 5 stars for that last publishing disaster ('Beyond Reasonable Doubt' w/Mel Ayton taking one for the gipper) of yours, right?

David Von Pein, have you no shame?

pssst, Barry needs to find a damn job! So do you.

how about a mysterious cabal promoting Jesus's lifelike image on the Shroud of Turin, eh? Think that scam is from Zeta Reticuli too?

Lone Nutters have spent the past 52 years portraying an image of reasonableness. Until of course case evidence is challenged... More questions than answers. If you're not aware of WC propensity for avoiding case evidence, perhaps you might catch the next bus to Zeta Reticuli, they might be able to help you... lmao!

What "image" the Lone Nutters portray has nothing to do with the merits of the evidence except to those for whom image is more important than evidence. Whether the evidence presents "more questions than answers" is debatable, but in any event no volume of "questions" equates to an elaborate conspiracy except in the minds of those who regard an elaborate conspiracy as axiomatic; the existence of an elaborate conspiracy is a given, and thus questions become "evidence." I am indeed aware of the "WC propensity for avoiding case evidence," but the only explanation for this is likewise not necessarily a grand, multi-faceted conspiracy involving LBJ and his cronies, Hoover and his flunkies, field-level FBI agents, the Mafia, various levels of the CIA, various levels of the Secret Service, various levels of the Dallas police, assorted Texas oilmen, assorted anti-Castro exiles, two or more Lee Harvey Oswalds who had been groomed since childhood, the Bethesda medical staff, Ruth and Michael Paine, Roy Truly, several $1.25 an hour employees at the TSBD, de Mohrenschildt, altered films, altered bodies, phony money orders, Jimmy Hoffa, Daffy Duck, yada yada. Every time an inconvenient truth surfaces, the conspiracy must (and does) become grander and more elaborate to plug the hole. Please, I have been watching crazies weave their fantasies throughout the entire world of weirdness for 50 years. There is an indeed an undeniable UFO phenomenon that is highly mysterious and worthy of investigation; it may ultimately have a prosaic explanation or a jaw-dropping one, but "reptilian aliens controlling the world governments" is simply lunacy.

There may well have been a conspiracy of some sort to kill JFK, but to attempt to hold an elaborate conspiracy theory together by ascribing it to those spooky "wealthy Americans" who are always lurking in the background and controlling the events of the world is indeed in the same vein as the "aliens from Zeta Reticuli." The reality is, there is NO ONE and NO COMBINATION OF SOMEONES who could organize, coordinate and hold together a conspiracy of the magnitude favored by the crazies. This isn't how conspiracies work; this isn't how the world works. Milking the crazies with elaborate conspiracy theories to feed one's ego or line one's pockets is how the world works.

LMAO back at you ... but probably not for the reasons you think.

"...elaborate conspiracy... conspiracy must (and does) become grander and more elaborate... grand, multi-faceted conspiracy..."

All distractions, dude.... conspiracy at ANY level is still a conspiracy, a conspiracy murdered JFK, WHY and who, forget the adjectives, we're lookin' for the beef!

"WC propensity for avoiding case evidence..." What did they want to avoid seeing and/or finding? And how did they even know to avoid anything BEFORE they started the investigation? Why? Conspiracy?

When you think about this sort of thing long enough, explanations like "the aliens from Zeta Reticuli who really control everything" (popular among the lunatic fringe of ufology) can start to seem plausible. But I tend to go the other direction: Who had the power and daring-do to organize and coordinate a multi-faceted conspiracy on the massive scale that conspiracy theorists hypothesize? NO ONE. This is my principle objection to grand conspiracy theories. They simply are not plausible. They collapse upon themselves. The lone nut hypothesis at least passes the "surface plausibility" test, although it rapidly becomes at least somewhat shaky. This is why I have a heavy predisposition toward a small group of rabid fanatics, but not a conspiracy involving everyone from LBJ to $1.25 per hour employees of the TSBD and scores of diverse characters in between. So that is my answer to the original post: NO ONE. The notion of a mysterious cabal of wealthy Americans pulling all these strings strikes me as pretty close to "the aliens from Zeta Reticuli who really control everything."

how about a mysterious cabal promoting Jesus's lifelike image on the Shroud of Turin, eh? Think that scam is from Zeta Reticuli too?

Lone Nutters have spent the past 52 years portraying an image of reasonableness. Until of course case evidence is challenged... More questions than answers. If you're not aware of WC propensity for avoiding case evidence, perhaps you might catch the next bus to Zeta Reticuli, they might be able to help you... lmao!

Scott,

You ACTUALLY think that I think the Zapruder Film is fake?

Please tell me where you got such a crazy notion?

And I'd still like to see the link to this quote....

"I think it was a mistake allowing Scott in this forum."

Have you got a link for it?

Answer me this, how can I provide you a link to a conversation we had, when YOU kick me out after arguing with Cage and YOUR buddies at YOUR Facebook Forum? Then you said, "I think it was a mistake allowing Scott in this forum", Can't you find your own information, just think back to when Cage brought me in, and that ridiculous bet he tried sidestepping. It may have been his forum.

Even Von Pein can't inject anything new into a 52 year old farce called the Warren Commission Report.

But I'll tell ya what he can do, that's start another blog to go along with the 27 he already has start another website to go along with the16 he already has start another YouTube Channel to go along with the 12 he already has and finally post another 15,000 times during the next few months to go along with the 437,593 he already has...

BTW, the whole idea here is to keep this thread on the front page, the nutters are getting desperate, REAL desperate.

I have an idea folks: Why doesn't everyone here simply ignore DVP and post around him. Arguing with professional lone nutters is a total waste of time. But then that's the idea.

No worries, Dawn. Most of the CTers in this place already agreed (many weeks ago) to put me on "ignore".

So you can rest easy. Oswald's guilt will still conveniently be sidestepped and ignored by about 85% of the Education Forum members, regardless of anything ol' DVP has to say. Pretty much the same way Oswald's obvious guilt is totally ignored at your "Deep Politics Forum" as well (via the complete silencing of any anti-conspiracy opinion).

======================

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dawn Meredith is on record as saying she would never permit an "LNer" to register at DPF. She said that very thing as recently as February 20, 2014:

"We don't allow LN ers. So that omits that waste of time."

-- Dawn Meredith; Founding Member of Deep Politics Forum; 2/20/14

...

Here's what YOU don't get DVP, not all CT's or those that seek the "truth" want to debate "facts". Most simply aren't interested in "engaging" loon neuter's. It's a waste of time and you know it. Take for example what is going on at the AMAZON JFK forum/threads. Lone Nutters (supporters of the 1964 WCR conclusions) are being clobbered by what we now know concerning the1964 WCR evidence, on a daily basis. Just as old JFK assassination prolific researcher Harold Weisberg predicted: "just beat them over the head with case evidence, there's no place for them to run... (except the AAJ clubhouse of course)"

Why does anyone need to debate, debate that a conspiracy murdered JFK? What is in it for you?

Doesn't take a genius to tell ya, there's a film script here! A big one!

Elephant in the Room: Many of us have heard the story of a researcher who had access to the original in HSCA days. What if?? How does one handle that situation?

perhaps the lawsuit will shed light on "that situation?"

The NYT silence is deafening... WTF?

What will you do if they honestly can't find it? Or if somebody switched a copy for the original somewhere along the line?

IF, it's the in-camera original (and that's a huge IF), it will be the only 'original' film (or for that matter photo's) in WC files or the FBI files!!!

Hell, even Harold Weisberg was complaining about original film/photo evidence way back in 1967. In short and simple language the WC wanted no originals films-photos in their files, they'd have to defend them if that situation arose -- in that case, they were prophets...

thank you....

methinks someone is trying to pull DVP's deep-fried money order out of the fire... Nutters will go to any length to defend their faith (1964 Dulles-Warren Commission Report of course)!

the location of the original money order, is where? Not a "xerox" copy not a 1st generation photo image of same, nor second, third or fourth generation. And IF it's location is known is it available for validation? TWO (2) simple questions.

So attacking other researchers is "working toward a case conclusion"?

not much debate there, there are no "researchers" on the lone nut side of the equation. Just adherents (paid and otherwise) and WCR zealots including .john-ites. So who is attacking who, Mr. Roy?

whom

--Tommy

I'll get my secretary on that... but, thanks

So attacking other researchers is "working toward a case conclusion"?

not much debate there, there are no "researchers" on the lone nut side of the equation. Just adherents (paid and otherwise) and WCR zealots including .john-ites. So who is attacking who, Mr. Roy?

and....after all this, just how do you prove this money order was CASHED?

Why would it have to be cashed instead of deposited into Klein's bank account?

--Tommy

thank you, I'll correct that to WHO deposited the MO?

So why don't you just ignore him?

He can't. He's obsessed with me. Has been for years.

I wish he would start ignoring me, though, because the way he calls me "hon" and "toots" is creepy as all get out.

Can you imagine a 60+-year-old man talking like that over and over again on public forums? (Yikes.)

It's 70 son, .john lone nutters can't get things right. Especially when it comes to case evidence!

Ignore? How can you ignore a guy that has 25,000 recent forum/boards posting (probably 200,000+ over the past 20 years), 15 blogs (and counting), 8 YouTube channels (and counting) and 6 websites (and counting) all associated with the JFK assassination? Kinda like ignoring the plague... (oh, and promoted the worst book publishing disaster ever: Reclaiming History by Vinnie daBug)

I'd love to see him back on AMAZON, one can rightfully assume DavidVP wishes he never started posting there...

...

It would be helpful to do something other than attack.

which begs the questions: are we working towards a case conclusion or simply playing the proverbial, lone nut, holding game? I say the latter. (sorry for interrupting the thread)

and....after all this, just how do you prove this money order was CASHED?

Mixup: I was not commenting on David Andrews' post 55. I was commenting on David Healey's post 56.

The latter is nothing more than a snotty attack on Tim Brennan. No comment about Beckham (who is not believable). His recent posts are often not directly on-point; rather, they are attempts at "us vs. them" sarcasm. There was a time, in the past, when that sort of thing was discouraged in the EdForum.

In Farewell to Justice, Mellen accepts Beckham's claim that it is he in that photo. I think Beckham misled Joan in many ways.

there was a time here, and on other forums/boards Blackburst-Roy, when addressing another, YOU spelled their name correctly. Can't help yourself can ya?

As for Brennan, you have got to be kidding me? He debated Ben Holmes on ACJ for years concerning case evidence and got his proverbial lone nut clock cleaned, EVERYTIME... just another .john wannabe, "newsgroup commentator" is how he always signed his postings --commentator-- can you dig it?... And there's good reason to believe Brennan is Tim West, a notoriously failed standup comic from upper Nu Yawk. Even nutters get hoodwinked now and then!

But most can spell last names. And yes, I do know the definition of "blackburst"!

...

The rifle that Oswald owned. The one that Marina repeatedly refers to in her testimony.

Excuse me, but this is simply not the case. And when we had people like Farley, Josephs, Hogan etc on this forum, it would have been called out immediately.

...

speaking of who, whatever happened to Mike Hogan? Anyone?

As I've said in the past, James DiEugenio doesn't care how many people he has to trash and call L-words (falsehood tellers). There is no limit in Jim's all-encompassing world of "conspiracy" and "cover-up" in the JFK case.

In Jim's last short post alone, three people get thrown under the bus by Jim -- Holmes, Dulles, and Ford. All of them innocent of any wrong-doing (IMO), but all of them considered falsehood tellers of the first order by James DiEugenio of Los Angeles.

Absolutely pathetic.

David, as difficult as the following will be to accept, you must in order to move forward.... DVP, you've been left in the dust. You are ringing hollow as do most self-defined lone nut, LHO did it all by his lonesome whiners...

The key punch holes are irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Namely, did the money order pass through the system[?]

Warren Commission Document No. 75, Page 668 is an FBI report that says a "Postal Money Order" in the amount of $21.45 was definitely sent to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago by the First National Bank of Chicago on Saturday, March 16, 1963 (next-to-last paragraph of CD75, p.668).

It sure as heck looks like the Hidell money order passed through the system to me.

At the very least, that 11/23/63 FBI report in CD75 verifies that FIRST NATIONAL BANK handed off the $21.45 "Postal Money Order" to the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK in Chicago on 3/16/63, which was one day after Klein's deposited the M.O. into its account on March 15th (also verified in CD75).

Is Vice President Robert Wilmouth of the First National Bank of Chicago now on your list of falsehood tellers, Mr. DiEugenio?

more than enough prestidigitators and fabricators on the lone nut side of the equation not to mention WC members to keep one busy policing for the next 50 years. Why do you insist on making a fool out of yourself? "...did the money order pass through the system?"