Sandy Larsen

Can you truly not see the logical flaws in this statement? When writing this statement: "It is fully rational to "ignore" the FLN if the lack of a bank stamp indicates that the PMO wasn't processed. Because if it wasn't processed, then clearly the FLN was forged." I did not take into account anything superfluous to the statement. You did when you read and evaluated it. Which I suppose explains why you think the statement is logically flawed. The statement is a self-consistent, completely logical remark.

Actually Jim, there is a very simple explanation for this. The FBI initially searched through Klein's internal invoices looking for the rifle with serial number C2766. They had to manually inspect thousands of these invoices (which is why it took seven hours to find the correct one). The C2766 internal invoice showed that the rifle was purchased with a money order made out for $21.45. Then the FBI inspected microfilmed purchase orders (described as "order letter" by Chief Curry), looking for one ordering a Carcano rifle and paid for with a $21.45 money order. This searched yielded two candidates orders.... one paid for with a postal MO, the other with an American Express MO. Thus, of the numerous $21.45 entries on the deposit slip, two were known to have been paid for with a $21.45 money order. Please, anybody, correct me if I am wrong in my thinking here.

Jim, As you know, I have determined to my satisfaction that the Hidell money order was forged. I consider the fake PMO to be a "smoking gun." In contrast, there are other unusual things that, when taken alone, can be explained away as innocent mistakes. For example, the 2/15/63 date on the deposit slip you posted, which could conceivably have been an innocent mistake. It's only when the whole picture is being considered that such things can be convincingly exposed as being mistakes made by cover-up artists. I'd like to play devil's advocate, the purpose being to identify additional "smoking guns." This exercise could prove useful, for example when trying to persuade others that the mail order gun purchase never took place.

There is decisive evidence out there somewhere. Hundreds of millions of postal money orders were processed through the Federal Reserve System every year during the 1960's. Somewhere there are bank manuals, elderly postal or bank employees who were directly and knowledgably involved in the process, other processed money orders and similar resources that would settle once and for all whether punch card postal money orders were stamped by banks as they made their way through the Federal Reserve collection process and whether the "failure" of a this particular postal money order to bear any stamp other than the Klein's deposit stamp would have been fatal. This issue could be resolved by some diligent inquiry, but what fun would that be? It's far more fun - and far more likely to sell books - to speculate that a veritable team of FBI, Secret Service, Postal Service and Treasury Department officials were involved in an elaborate scheme of fabrication and deception. Has anyone noticed that the "evidence" Sandy now regards as dispositive in not the evidence on which Armstrong relied at all in formulating his claims? And that the "evidence" Armstrong did rely on has gone poof? And that massive new evidence to the contrary, such as the File Locator Number, has surfaced and been blithely ignored? As one who truly has no dog in this fight, I'm just following the evidence where it, logic, common sense, and reasonable inferences and probabilities seem to lead. If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, I would respectfully suggest that the "evidence" on which you rely does not come close to the level of being "extraordinary." If the postal money order is such a critical issue, I would suggest that someone do the sort of diligent research that Armstrong should have done before making his claims and then get back to us. And I am emphatically not talking about vague and off-the-cuff questions to anonymous bank officials, which are then reported back to us with assurances in the vein of "Yeah, he really seemed to know what he was talking about, and he agreed with everything I said." Lance, I will note that, between you, myself, and John Armstrong, I am the only one relying solely on hard evidence. As for this statement of yours: It is fully rational to "ignore" the FLN if the lack of a bank stamp indicates that the PMO wasn't processed. Because if it wasn't processed, then clearly the FLN was forged. Based on the hard evidence, the conclusion is clearly that the PMO likely wasn't processed. I qualify my conclusion with the word "likely" because something unusual may have occurred. The most obvious being that somehow the Hidell PMO got passed up in the bank stamping step of the collection process. There is also the SLIM possibility that you are right, that there was some sort of document that was separate from and superseded what was printed in FRB circulars, a document stating that PMOs did not require bank stamping. I find that possibility to be HIGHLY unlikely, because such information could have been printed in the circulars themselves. There is simply no reason to have informed banks of this exception in a separate document.

Lance, You are misrepresenting how I regard the 1998 postal instructions I posted. Just because those instructions accurately represented the way postal money orders were handled by banks up till 1951, as per Post Office Department regulations then in force; and just because they continued to accurately represent the way PMOs were handled post-1951, according to Federal Reserve Bank regulations; and just because they reflected accurately how Jon Tidd had described the handling of PMOs (which you described as "gibberish" IIRC), does not mean that I regard them as decisive pieces of evidence. I do, however, consider them to be supportive pieces of evidence. Highly supportive.

I really feel the forum needs a separate sub-forum devoted exclusively to this endlessly fascinating topic. You write as though the previous discussions had simply never taken place, which some folks perhaps wish they hadn't. I don't know whether the missing threads have disappeared temporarily or permanently, but surely this topic has been beaten to death and beyond. It is clear that the forum is divided into Armstrong Cheerleaders and Armstrong Critics, and never the twain shall meet. Just to be clear, I am neither an Armstrong Supporter nor an Armstrong Critic. I haven't even read Armstrong's book or his PMO write-up. (Though I do plan to.) I have focused only on the PMO bank stamp issue. I would respectfully suggest that the money order bears no "bank endorsements" (a misnomer) for the reasons set forth in the 1,523 previous posts (ballpark estimate) wherein, in my estimation as a Critic, Armstrong's research and theory were decisively thumped, thumped and thumped again. I really don't know what could possibly be said that hasn't already been said, by either the Cheerleaders or the Critics. Perhaps you view the removal of the previous threads as an opportunity to pretend they were just a bad dream and begin cheerleading anew;.... Lance, the original thread is still available here. ....this seems a bit disingenuous to me, but in any event I yield the floor to the Cheerleaders because I really don't see further participation in the "discussion" of this topic as being productive.

Banks have always been required to stamp PMOs. (By "always," I mean from at least 1900 to at least 2000.) Lance Payette posted the1960 Federal Reserve Bank circular that indicates that ALL cash items (which specifically includes postal money orders) were required to have bank stamps. I subsequently found and posted documents showing that this same requirement was in place prior to 1951, the year FRBs began processing PMOs in accordance with an agreement between them and the Postmaster General. I did the same for PMOs dated between 1987, when the Expedited Funds Act was initiated, and 2001. Just recently I posted a letter dated 1898 indicating that the same requirement was in place then. I posted the letter because it reveals the early rationale for the bank stamp requirement, and how bank stamps were differentiated from bank endorsements on negotiable instruments. I have posted documents dated 1898, 1925, 1960, 1969, and 2001, all indicating that PMOs required a bank stamp from presenting banks. Together, these documents show a continuity in the way banks handled PMOs throughout the 1900s. In contrast, Lance believes that beginning in 1951, when Federal Reserve Banks began processing all PMOs, stamps from presenting banks were no longer required. Even though this contradicts what FRB circulars state. Yet he hasn't produced a single document supporting his view. I contend that Lance cannot produce such a document because no such document exists or ever existed. I contend that Lance is therefore wrong. Until such time that Lance produces such I document, I do not see how his claim can be taken seriously. Regardless of how strenuously he argues his view. Because the official documentation supports my view, and contradicts Lance's. Lance's view is merely Lance's opinion.

Thanks for pointing this out to me, Jim. It really does seem that Ruth Paine is a CIA asset, and this supports that idea.

Wow! You should always show this document to Harvey and Lee skeptics, Jim. Do you know why the drivers license was there? Was it an expired and surrendered license that been stored in the state's files? I don't know why the government would do that.

Paul? Oops. Sorry Jon. (I probably shouldn't post in the morning.)

Jim, Please bear with me as I try to understand the point of your post. I will restate the story as I understand it, leaving out irrelevant parts for brevity's sake, but inserting probable assumptions as I see them. But first a couple of comments: I don't see any compelling reason to believe that the first car is in any way related to Ruth Paine. The driver of the first car (the one with the broken generator) may (or may not) be a HARVEY Oswald look-alike given that he is described as a white male, approximately 20 years old, 5-foot-8, with dark hair and a thin face. But there is no compelling reason, that I can see, to believe that he is LEE Oswald specifically. Now I'll restate the story as I see it... the important parts only: Two guys have their car fixed at Jack's Super Shell. HARVEY Oswald is the passenger. They (probably the driver) sells a gun to the mechanic to pay for the repairs. Two weeks later, Ruth Paine and HARVEY Oswald bring Ruth's Chevrolet station wagon in the same service station for service. That's it. The only relaionship I see with Ruth Paine is Harvey Oswald. I don't see any LEE Oswald at all. Where am I wrong?

I agree Jon, that in this particular instance the simple solution is that Oswald acted alone. But there is far too much pointing in the opposite direction for me to accept that conclusion. And that is my reason for starting this thread.

Jim, When you say it speaks volumes about Ruth Paine, are you referring to he comment that her kids could speak Russian? (I just woke up and maybe I missed something due to brain fog. I'm definitely not a morning person.)

I'm looking forward to seeing how John gives credit to Ruth (and not Linnie Mae Randle) for suggesting Oswald apply for a job at the TSBD. Accusing Ruth Paine of placing LHO at the TSBD to be blamed for the murder of JFK has been a favorite pastime of CTers for decades. Paul, I'm not blaming Paine for doing anything wrong. So I'm not accusing her of anything. I'm merely attributing to her the idea of Oswald apply for a job at the TSBD. Since you believe, as do I, that Oswald was set up as a patsy, surely you must wonder how it is that Oswald just happened to have gotten a job that facilitated his being set up. Can't you see that some how Ruth played into the plotters hands by helping Oswald get that job? How do you believe it came about the Oswald happened to end up working in a place where he could be blamed for the assassination of Kennedy?

Good stuff, Ray. Though I don't see how there was enough time for the body to go to Walter Reed and be back at Bethesda in time for the autopsy. Also, there's the orderly who saw pre-autopsy surgery at Bethesda.

Um, let me guess, Jim. Since John Armstrong was also a member of Probe magazine back in the 1990's, like James DiEugenio, John Armstrong will base his new article attacking Ruth Paine on the Probe articles of Carol Hewett and her followers. That is some of the weakest argumentation I have ever heard from an attorney in my life. Well -- let's give John Armstrong the benefit of the doubt -- maybe he's actually done some independent research. I'm looking forward to picking his article apart. Regards, --Paul Trejo I'm looking forward to seeing how John gives credit to Ruth (and not Linnie Mae Randle) for suggesting Oswald apply for a job at the TSBD.

I just read Linnie Randall's testimony. She says she mentioned the TSBD to Ruth -- among several other places -- as a place Oswald might get job. That goes against my hypothesis here. Unless it is a coincidence... if that is conceivable. She mentioned the TSBD because her brother, Buell Frazier, worked there. I'm not sure what to make of this. It is troubling.

Thanks Ray, Yeah, that is consistent with what has been established. There had been some sort of surgery performed on JFK's head before the autopsy began. Lifton thought that it was done to make it look like the bullets came from behind. The orderly in your ARRB report apparently thought it was to obscure certain bullet holes. From the description of the wounds by Parkland vs Bethesda doctors, I thought the surgeon also must have made the wound MUCH larger. And also removed the brain, and either put it back in or inserted a different brain. (For what reason I don't know.) Because during the autopsy the brain virtually fell out on its own, something that just doesn't happen because so many things (like the brain stem) need cutting before the brain will come out.

I debated the two-coffin three-entry thing with an LNer when it was fresh in my mind. The LNer is a very intelligent friend of mine. But he just couldn't win the argument. It's a slam-dunk case. The only question I couldn't answer in our debate was when and how the President's body was moved to the cheap casket. But that didn't, and still doesn't, matter to me because the fact that body ended up in the wrong coffin proves that the body was indeed moved. I'm not really interested in debating this topic. I'm still burned out from my first debate, which went on for weeks. It's off topic anyway. EDIT: I just remember one other thing I couldn't answer, and that is whether the body was transported to the hospital in the decoy ambulance (which definitely existed) or by helicopter. Due to timing problems, I think it must have been by helicopter. But there is only a single bit of evidence I could find that indicates a helicopter was used.

Please hear me our before responding. I believe the CIA was behind the JFK assassination. For me, it's too incredible to believe that Oswald just happened to get a job at a place where he could be framed for the murder. Therefore I believe Ruth Paine had to have been taking orders from the CIA. It's also too incredible to believe that the CIA would choose a place for the shooting and the framing that wasn't under their control. So I believe that either the TSBD was a CIA front, or that the owner was a CIA asset. Possibility 1 : Now, if the CIA had control over the TSBD, there would be no need for Ruth pain to get Oswald a job there. The CIA could simply order the CIA asset at the TSBD to hire Oswald. However, in order to maintain cover stories, it would have been necessary for everybody to go through the motions to make it look like Ruth Paine had actually gotten the job for Oswald. Possibility 2: It just occurred to me that maybe Oswald was unaware that Ruth Paine and the TSBD were CIA assets. In which case Ruth Paine really did get the job for him. Any thoughts on these two scenarios? What do you believe and why?

David, I don't know much about several of the topics you and Jim spar over, but I've studied the casket-arrival-at-Bethesda thing fairly thoroughly. There were not two casket entries... there were three. It's easy to prove this because a different group of guys carried the casket for each arrival. But there were only two caskets.

It will be good to see you posting again, Robert.

Oops... how embarrassing. Thanks.

Jon, As I've stated many times, postal money orders have ALWAYS required bank stamps when presented for collection. (By "always" I mean at least from 1900 to 2000. I haven't checked outside that range of dates.) Below is an excerpt from a letter published in the Wichita Eagle newspaper on January 21, 1898, that includes comments on how bank stamps on PMOs were viewed. The letter was written by First Assistant Postmaster General Perry S. Heath and was addressed to local post offices. (I don't know why it was publish in a newspaper.) This letter corroborates what you told Lance about bank stamps on PMOs (highlighted in red above). That which he, in reply, said was "gibberish – literally, gibberish." Here's the excerpt: "Every money order passed through the Clearing House should be receipted on its face by the payee or endorsee, and must be stamped upon the back by the bank presenting it [to a post office] so that no dispute may arise as to the number or identity of [money] orders listed [on a list of PMOs presented], or if at any time in the future it shall be necessary to request that such an order be redeemed by the bank. The stamp impressions which banks ordinarily place upon money orders deposited or sent to them for collection, it is held, are not to be regarded as endorsements transferring ownership of the order, but simply as guarantees of the genuineness of signatures of payees or indorsees, and as transfers for collection purposes; hence, if an order bears a bank stamp impression in addition to endorsement in regular form, or even if it bears several such impressions, it Is not on that account to be regarded as within the purview of the statute which provides that more than one endorsement shall render a money order invalid and not payable. If, as is sometimes the case, the rules of the Clearing House shall be so constructed as to prevent an arrangement of the kind outlined, you are at liberty to affect an agreement with such bank as you shall select to act as your representative, which may receive in practically similar manner all [money] orders presented to it at the Clearing House meetings by other banks, and in turn receive payment therefor in one sum from you. It will be understood that if you shall select a bank to represent the post office, as indicated in paragraph J, the [money] orders shall be stamped in the manner and for the purpose of satisfactory identification, as described in paragraph 7. Settlements and reclamations will be made directly between the representative bank and the individual banks which deposit with it [money] orders for collection, or they may be otherwise effected, as shall be mutually agreed. It is desired that, so far as may be possible, money orders shall be deposited in banks for collection. It is requested that publicity be given, through the press, of this arrangement, and that business houses be advised to so deposit their [money] orders, if agreed to, in lieu of presenting them at the post office. If it is now the practice of any individual to present orders in considerable numbers, suggest to him that he may more conveniently receive payment by depositing them in a bank for collection." So, we see that even before Federal Reserve Banks began accepting PMOs for collection, Post Office Department regulations stated that a PMO "must be stamped upon the back by the bank presenting it." This confirms your contention that "the bank stamp was critical." We also see that the bank stamp was to be regarded as a "transfer for collection purposes." This confirms your contention that the bank stamp is what ""allowed a transferor bank to be paid by a transferee bank." There should be no doubt that this regulation remained in force when FRBs began accepting PMO's for collection. You and I believe that, and even Lance believes it. The difference between us and Lance is that he considers FRB member banks to be extensions of FRBs for collection purposes, and therefore aren't required to stamp PMOs. (Or at least that is what he once claimed.) Of course, FRB circulars prove that we are right and Lance is wrong... a fact that he just cannot accept.

Lance, The cases you cite here do indeed confirm the fact that PMO's are not negotiable instruments. A fact that we already know. I just want casual observers to understand this.