Jon G. Tidd

Tommy, Insults are a key indicator. If they are made unskillfully, they mean the hurler of the insult is a mindless individual. Someone for whom an insult is easier to craft than an insight. If they are made skillfully, which takes the skill of someone such as Oscar Wilde, they are jewels to behold. I advise all here to think how skillful they are in hurling insults. Food fights are another matter. There's nothing elegant about a food fight. Just having fun. Greg Parker tends toward food fights, which I like.

Ed, You've posted a 1963 photo of my fraternity at the University of Illinois. C'est moi. Carry on.

Bruce, I wish I could supply what you want. At best, I only can speculate. In any event, knowing that the Hidell PMO appears to be a fake, based on verifiable facts, tells me there's something rotten; something the Warren Commission, the HSC, and the ARRB should have considered. BTW, where are you in CT? I'm in West Simsbury.

The $21.45 A. Hidell postal money order is provably a fake. The fakery is evident. The proof of fakery is obtainable today. The keys to understanding these things are [a] to understand the legal nature of a PMO in 1963, to understand how PMOs and checks differ and are alike, and [c] to understand how PMOs were processed for payment in 1963. The legal nature of a PMO in 1963. - By 1963, there was a body of case law (law handed down by courts) on the legal nature of PMOs. PMOs o were not commercial instruments, and o were not, therfore, negotiable instruments. The fact a PMO was not a negotiable instrument could have adverse consequences for an injured innocent party. For example, if M knowingly sold a defective rifle to N, who paid M with a PMO; and upon getting the rifle home, N discovered the rifle was defective; N could not stop payment of the PMO and get back the money he used to purchase the PMO. By way of contrast, if N had paid with a check, which is a negotiable instrument, N could stop payment on the check. Sure, N would have a claim against M if N paid with a PMO, but N's claim would be worthless if M was broke or was MIA. In some ways, PMOs were handled like checks. - A check is drawn upon a bank. PMOs were drawn upon the Post Office. The chief difference between checks and PMOs in 1963 is that while a check could be endorsed and transferred any number of times, a PMO could be endorsed only once. More on this important feature of PMOs in due course. Before we get to this feature of PMOs, it will help greatly to understand checks and endorsements. Checks and endorsements. - If in 1963, N handed a check drawn upon First Bank for 21.45 to M in exchange for a rifle, the check would read "Pay to the order of M...." The word "Pay" is an order to First Bank to pay out of the account on which the check is written $21.45 to the order of M. What do the words "to the order of M mean"? They mean: [a] Pay directly to M if M walks into First Bank and presents the check for payment; or pay to any other party who presents the check for payment, provided the check contains all necessary endorsements. What is an endosement? It is a signature, perhaps a signature together with other words such as "pay to the order of [A NAMED PARTY]" or "For deposit only". What is the purpose or function of an endorsement on a financial instrument? An endorsement is for the protection of a party who receives the instrument in exchange for money. Money either deposited to the transferring party's account or paid in cash to the transferring party. The party who lays out the money has recourse against (can go after) any prior endorser in the event the instrument is dishonored (e.g., in the event the check bounces, OR in the event the check is not paid because the account owner's signature is determined by the bank to have been forged). In our example, M would be the first endorser and would stand to be left holding the bag if, for example, N was impersonated and N's signature was forged. PMOs in 1963. - A 1963 PMO did not say "Pay to the order of...." It said "Pay to...." The mere difference in words had great significance when coupled with the fact a PMO could be endorsed only once. It meant the only non-bank party entitled to receive payment of a PMO was the party named as payee after the words "Pay to". That brings us to how PMOs were processed and paid in 1963. Any PMO could be cashed at a post office. But for the years 1961-65, 99 percent of all PMOs were paid by the Federal Reserve. The process worked like this: Klein's would receive a PMO as payment for a rifle. Klein's would stamp its endorsement on the PMO and deposit the PMO in its account at First National Bank of Chicago ("First"). First was a so-called member bank of the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank ("Chicago FRB"). First would issue a credit to Klein's and would stamp the back of the PMO and then deposit the PMO with the Chicago FRB. The Fed would pay First, making a charge against the U.S. Treasury. Treasury would acquire the PMO from the Fed and then obtain payment from the Post Office, which would take final possession of the PMO. This worked as a way of processing PMOs within a sophisticated banking system because bank stamps were not considered endorsements for PMO purposes. A bank stamp on a PMO functioned as an endorsement, however, by allowing the Post Office recourse against any bank that had stamped the PMO in the event the Post Office determined the PMO had been forged or stolen. Forged and stolen PMOs were a big problem for the Post Office in the 1950s and early 1960s. The A. Hidell PMO for $21.45. - This PMO is in regular form on its face. The back bears a Klein's stamped endorsemnt: "Pay to the order of the First National Bank of Chicago". That was a proper form of endorsement and would have prompted First to credit Klein's. So contrary to what has been written, Klein's could have been paid by First. The problem is that because First never stamped the back of the PMO, there's no way the Fed would have credited (paid) First. In fact, the Fed would have rejected First's attempt to deposit the PMO, and the PMO would have wound up back in First's hands. Of course, we're given a different story, one completely at odds with 1963 banking law and procedures. Anyone who maintains First or the Fed simply made a mistake is wrong. Banking law and procedure for mundane matters always has been a matter of precision, mainly to protect the banks. What's flawed is the story we've been given, which is that the Hidell PMO traveled through the Federal Reserve System and came to rest at the Post Office in Washington, D.C. That simply did not happen. But wait. - There's a way to verify what happened, which is to uncover the payment chain running from Klein's to the Post Office. If there was such a chain, somewhere, perhaps buried deeply, there's a clean, clear paper trail showing the chain. If such a paper trail doesn't exist, the official story of the Hidell PMO is a fraud. 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. The Hidell PMO screamed to the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and the ARRB, "Come check me out!"

Greg, Let's cut to the chase. I don't want to derail this thread, but I do want to address your persistence that there was one individual named Lee Harvey Oswald, whose visage was captured in various photographs from the 1950s. I see two individuals. That is my perception. You may have a different perception, in which case I'm interested in and respect your perception. Let's be colleagues, not antagonists.

Greg, I use the term "Marina's husband" because, as you know, it's a neutral term. I takes no position as to the identity of the person called "Oswald". You disagree that there were an Harvey and a Lee. You believe there was one individual named LHO. Fine. You have your opinion, which I don't discredit. You may be right. I think you're wrong. It's a matter of opinion, not fact. Let's separate fact from opinion.

Ken Davies is quite correct as to the Rules of Evidence.

Paul, I can't remember: Do you believe Marina's husband fired at JFK? Ruth Paine said on television she believed Oswald killed JFK because he, Oswald, was a little man who wanted to make a big splash. At the time, "little man" had a particular meaning, and Ruth Paine's statement was clearly a derogatory reference to Oswald's "manliness". This interview always has rubbed me the wrong way. It seems contrived and disingenuous. Furthermore it's odd that Ruth Paine, who spent a fair amount of time with Oswald, would so coldly condemn him. Ruth Paine hardly comes off as charitable.

Bart Kamp. Please tell me one verifiable fact you discern from the Darnell film.

No, Brian. There are verifiable facts. For example, the bottom of the 6th floor sniper's nest window is verifiably so many feet above ground level.

None of the photographic material pertaining to the JFK assassination that came into the possession of the U.S. Government is reliable. Unless [a] you're a True Believer, or you believe in the material that supports your view. A pox on PM, who was invented using a blurry image on a film that came, as I understand, into the possession of the U.S. Government. There can be no serious discussion of PM. We can't be sure that the version of the Darnell film we see is original. Even if we assume it's original [a] the PM image is open to honest debate as to height, gender, you name it; and the PM figure is impossibly, yes impossibly, shorter than the Bill Shelley figure (would you bet the farm that's a true, original depiction of Bill Shelley?). I don't want to believe anything about JFK, his foreign policy, his administration, or his murder. I want verifiable facts. The debate over PM is a dead end. Yes, it's fun for enthusiasts. Far better IMO is to latch onto the verifiable facts, some of which are included in Chesser's and Mantik's analyses. I understand this forum is a place to have fun and blow off steam. And to assert opinions. If we want the truth of the JFK, we need to strip down to bare metal and focus on verifiable facts.

Jim, Don't be stupefied. The Paines lied. The only question is, why?

Stephen Roy, whom I think is more wrong than right, has written here about groupthink. I believe everyone here has a common definition of groupthink. Paul Trejo, whose conclusions I reject, attacks groupthink. And is in turn attacked. This place is like highschool. The most popular male becomes the homecoming king. Good for the homecoming king. I say the truth about the JFK assassination is far too bitter to swallow. Either today or in 1963-64. And that goes for LNers and CTers.

Jim Di, You write about Oswald's intel ties. I assume you mean Marina's husband's intel ties, just to satisfy the H&L crowd here and eliminate any ambiguity. Question: If you could get one question answered about these ties through a FOIA request, what would that question be?

Paul, I think Michael and Ruth Paine lied for this reason: After Oswald's arrest and murder, they had nothing good to say about him. The Paines were well-educated, intelligent, relatively sophisticated individuals. They sold down the river, with no apparent regrets, a man whom they had come to know, at least a little. A man, yes, who was not a great individual based on his education or position; a man who was extraordinary in some ways. To characterize Oswald as a little man was a sexist play that worked surely in 1963. Yeah, he was puny. You could kick sand in his face and take his girl. The Paines didn't have to do this. They really didn't. The fact the Paines have no regrets tells me something. They're true believers who care nought for the truth.

Jim. You present Ruth Paine's antecedents. Which is good. My question: So What? I ask for a humble reason. I don't care at all about my antecedents. Not one wit. Did Ruth or Michael care about their antecedents?

I like Jim Di and Greg Parker's posts a lot. I don't bow down to authority. Therefore, I ask Jim and Greg to address Paul. Paul may be out to lunch. But if Jim and Greg think he is, lay out why he's out to lunch.

Jim, In your post #29, you capture ripples in water and treat them as the outer edge of ripples caused by the dropping of a stone in a pond. Or is that not a fair statement?

I don't endorse personal attacks. I do believe Michael and Ruth Paine are liars. I don't know why they lie. Paul Trejo is largely correct as to purely factual matters in his posts #17 and #18, IMO. Furthermore, I disagree that Marina's husband was an intelligence agent. No matter what I think, the mere fact Jim and Paul disagree bitterly tells me something. Namely, that someone very wise about human beings had a hand in the whole matter. Someone who knew if there were various trails of possible thought, individuals who pursued those trails would end up in conflict. My prescription, therefore, is this. Stick to provable facts. As to "provable", I'll accept expert opinion, such as Chesser's and Mantik's.

Michael and Ruth Paine's marriage was falling apart by November 1963, which is understandable. But they were in sync re Marina's husband, which is also understandable. In the wake of the JFK killing, both a appeared not to come to Marina's husband's defense, but to view him as a distant object. That's understandable too. Marina's husband meant nothing to Michael or Ruth Paine. At best, Marina was a teacher to Ruth. If I could interview Ruth today, I'd ask her one question. Which is, if you believe Marina's husband killed JFK, why do you believe that?

Granted that JFK is entertainment, not history. But it sure gave rise to the ARRB, whose disclosures impugn both the Warren Commission and the HSCA. The ARRB didn't do much to reveal who killed JFK. It sure uncovered stuff the U.S. Government didn't want revealed. DVP: Assuming you're correct that Oswald did it alone, why have agencies of the U.S. Government fought so hard to reveal their files relating to the assassination? I'd rejoice if the files were laid bare and they indicated clearly that Oswald was the assassin. I'd go on with my life. I'm nagged, though, even though you aren't. By the neat opinion of the W.C., the MSM, and the mainstream historians that gets perforated by researchers. The researchers aren't 100-percent correct. They don't have to be to raise reasonable doubt. On the other hand, you and your fellow travelers have to be 100-percent correct. That is your burden.

Paul Trejo, Did Ruth Paine say anything that implicated Marina's husband in the murder of JFK?

Ron, How can moon material be older than Earth material if the moon was carved out of the Earth?

Sandy, I'm preparing a diary on postal money orders in 1963. FWIW, I dedicate the upcoming diary to you, who have produced this invaluable thread.

Ron, I include the Apollo moon landings for various reasons. As for the rocks, modern theory is that the moon was created out of Earth matter when a Mars-sized object collided with Earth. If this theory is correct, moon rocks would be of material that forms Earth rocks.