Sandy Larsen
-
Posts
9,184 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Sandy Larsen
-
-
In chapter 18c I go through the earliest statements of the Dealey Plaza witnesses, and those who saw Kennedy in the limo, and there is a virtually unanimous agreement among them that the head wound was on the right top side of the head. This stands in stark contrast to the number of those who saw a wound in the middle of the back of the head. Which was zero.
The Dealey plaza witnesses, like the Newmans, thought they saw blood gushing from the side of Kennedy's head. But what they actually saw was 1) back splatter from the temple-area entrance wound; 2) immediately followed by blood gushing from the exit wound at the right-rear of the head, which at this time was what the witnesses were looking at. Because, when Kennedy was shot in the temple, his head immediately turned to his left so he was facing Jackie. It happened so fast, and there was so much blood, that they didn't realize they were looking at the back of Kennedy's head, not the side.
Look at the Z film frame-by-frame to confirm this, begining at 313, which is when the bullet struck. By frame 316 the back of the head was where the side of the head had been when the bullet struck only 166 milliseconds earlier.
This is what I believe explains the discrepancy between the Dealey Plaza witnesses and all the medical professionals at Parkland.
LNers like to say that the Parkland doctors didn't have time to see where the wound was. Well, they had a hell of a lot more time than the Dealey Plaza witnesses did.
-
SANDY LARSEN SAID:
The Zapruder film was not privately owned. Life Magazine bought the rights for $1,000,000 in today's dollars. Very few people saw the Z film till Geraldo Rivera televised it in 1975. And the ones who did see it lied about it.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Zapruder's film was privately owned (by Abraham Zapruder) at the time it was developed, processed, and copied for the Secret Service on 11/22/63. And that's the most important timeframe that I was referring to when I said the film was a "privately-owned non-Government home movie".
Because in order for the silly Z-Film Alterationists to have a prayer of being right about the film being altered, that film certainly MUST have been altered BEFORE any of the three copies were made at the Jamieson film lab on November 22nd. And there's no way in hell anyone "altered" the film that quickly. Not even George Reeves as Superman could have accomplished that ultra-fast film-altering feat. Therefore, based on that timing factor alone, we can have all the confidence in the world that the film was most certainly NOT altered.
REPLAY....
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Do you REALLY think that the Z-Film plus the autopsy photos plus the autopsy X-rays were altered in order to "move" the large wound in JFK's head from the back to the right-front?
SANDY LARSEN SAID:
Yes I do think that. It's not the big deal you make it out to be. Bright college students could do it.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh, brother.
SANDY LARSEN SAID:
One has to be a real chump to believe all the lies the public has been fed regarding the JFK assassination. Just like the public was lied to about Viet Nam, 9/11 and Iraq, Iran-Contra, U.S meddling in other countries, assassinations, and coups.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But you've got to be an even bigger chump to believe that the Zapruder Film was altered (with lightning-like speed AND with Mr. Zapruder practically hovering over the film-fakers every step of the way), as well as believing all (or certainly most) of the autopsy photos AND X-rays were faked and altered by conspirators too (despite the fact the HSCA determined just exactly the opposite).
David, show me where I can observe the original Zapruder film, the one that Zapruder had on 11/23/63. One that hasn't been in the hands of the Secret Service, the FBI, or Life magazine. I want to compare that to the one(s) CTers say have been altered, to determine if they really have been.
I eagerly await your response.
If you (or anyone else) can't find that original film, that means that there WAS indeed plenty of time for alterations to be made to the film(s) we all see today.
(Above I put in parentheses the letter "s" after the words "one" and "film" because I don't know if what we see today came from only one of the original copies, or two, or even three . All I know is that I've seen various versions at YouTube that aren't identical. Some are B&W, others color. Some are grainy, others clear. Some are jerking, others stable.)
-
Horne (and I presume Mantik) assume Custer and Reed got all scared once shown the originals, and lied. That's pretty pathetic, IMO. It's amazing how so many of the medical witnesses (e.g. Carrico, Jenkins, Perry, Ebersole, Custer, Reed, Stringer, Riebe) are heroes when they tell people like Lifton, Mantik and Horne what they to hear, but are written off as liars and cowards when they tell them what they don't want to hear.
Did Horne really call them cowards?
I don't think they are cowards. But I do believe their earlier testimonies are more accurate than their later ones. Particularly given that they fairly well match the early testimonies of the huge majority of eyewitnesses.
-
Evidence can be altered, especially when it is hidden from everybody.
But the photographic evidence I talked about earlier isn't being "hidden" from anybody now.
It was altered long ago, David. Some of it has even disappeared... even though it was supposedly safely stored in the Archive.
As I asked before, do you REALLY think that the Z-Film plus the autopsy photos plus the autopsy X-rays were altered in order to "move" the large wound in JFK's head from the back to the right-front?
Yes I do think that. It's not the big deal you make it out to be. Bright college students could do it.
(Of course, there was no opportunity whatsoever for any plotters to have altered the Zapruder Film prior to that film being developed and copied for the Secret Service and FBI on November 22, 1963. Abe Zapruder himself stayed with his film every step of the way through the processing and copying stages at Kodak and the Jamieson film lab. Do CTers think Abraham Zapruder was part of a plot or a "cover-up" too?)
In short --- the THREE layers of photographic evidence---one of which (the Zapruder Film) was a privately-owned non-Government home movie---prove for all time, IMO, that President John F. Kennedy did NOT have a large wound in the back portion of his cranium after he was shot in Dallas on 11/22/63.
The Zapruder film was not privately owned. Life Magazine bought the rights for $1,000,000 in today's dollars. Very few people saw the Z film till Geraldo Rivera televised it in 1975 . And the ones who did see it lied about it. One has to be a real chump to believe all the lies the public has been fed re. the JFK assassination. Just like the public was lied to about Viet Nam, 9/11 and Iraq, Iran-Contra, U.S meddling in other countries, assassinations, and coups.
-
DVP,
I asked you arguendo on another thread whether if there was a conspiracy, the conspirators would stop at anything to cover their tracks.
You agreed not that there was a conspiracy but that if there was one, the conspirators would have stopped at nothing.
I respect your view there was no conspiracy. Which you maintain consistently.
Here there is reason to believe in conspiracy, the reason being unbelievable x-rays.
The issue isn't what the HSCA did or didn't do. The year 1978 is 37 years ago, an eon in terms of technology. The issue is whether current expert opinion based on modern technology leads to a conclusion of conspiracy. It does clearly IMO.
So I believe your view is at odds with expert opinion based on modern technology.
Your view is inflexible and unchanging. Modern technology is evolutionary.
DVP is clearly a Warren Commission ideologue. He believes whatever they want him to believe and disregards the rest.
-
Sandy,
But what about the Zapruder Film? It most certainly does NOT show a big hole in the BACK of President Kennedy's head. In the Z-Film, the exit wound in JFK's head is clearly located toward the FRONT and RIGHT SIDE of the head, above the President's right ear....
.gif)
So that makes THREE separate areas of photographic evidence which all corroborate each other with respect to the location of the large wound in President Kennedy's head:
1. The autopsy photos.
2. The autopsy X-rays.
3. The Zapruder Film.
Do you, Sandy, really think that ALL THREE of the above pieces of photographic (visual) evidence are fake in this case?
If so, that's a heck of a lot of fakery you've got to prove. And so far, no one has come close to proving that ANY of those three photographic items has been faked or altered.
And there's also the fact that the closest witnesses to the head shot in Dealey Plaza, who had a good view of the RIGHT side of JFK's head as it was exploding in front of them, said things in their first interviews on WFAA-TV on 11/22/63 that support the idea that the President's large head (exit) wound was located just exactly where we find it in the autopsy photos and X-rays and in the Zapruder Film---i.e., above JFK's right ear. Those witnesses include Abraham Zapruder himself and Bill and Gayle Newman....
-----
I can't believe that forty eyewitnesses, the majority of whom were medical professionals, can be wrong about this.
Evidence can be altered, especially when it is hidden from everybody.
I once had a photo taken of me for a passport. When I grimaced at the acne I saw on the photo, the photographer said no problem. I watched as he did some shading on the negative with pencils, which took a few seconds. A few minutes later he came out of his lab with a new set of photos, this time sans the acne. It was rather amazing.
-
This thread is more than a bit ironic. I was in Dallas and saw Dr. Mantik's and Dr. Chesser's presentations.
1. Several years ago, on this very forum, I pointed out to Dr. Fetzer that the "white patch" noted by Dr. Mantik on the x-rays did not cover the very back part of the skull, where most CT's presume the fatal wound was located. He double-checked this with Dr. Mantik and Dr. Mantik told him I was correct. Since that time, Dr. Mantik has repeated this conclusion a number of times, at the 2013 Wecht Conference, on the CTKA website, and then again in Dallas. So David Von Pein is incorrect. Mantik's conclusion the x-rays were altered is not directly related to his belief the back of the head was blown out.
2. In fact... In recent years, Mantik has taken to claiming the x-rays, which most CTs automatically dismiss due to their mistaken belief Mantik has claimed they were faked to hide a blow-out wound on the back of the head...DOES show a blow-out wound on the back of the head, and are PROOF this wound existed, and therefore a conspiracy. Now, I've been following this with great interest, because it's bizarre beyond belief. Mantik now claims the x-rays prove conspiracy...in two ways. One is that they show a large blow-out wound in the middle of the back of the head. Two is that they show things--such as the white patch and the 6.5 mm fragment, that could only have been added through alteration.
3. It was some unease then that I went to Dallas to watch Mantik's latest presentation...in which he claimed the Harper fragment was blown-out the middle of the back of Kennedy's head. I had already committed to talking about the x-rays, and was unsure if I could keep my mouth shut should Mantik receive an overwhelming response while pushing some stuff I feel certain is inaccurate. He spoke on Saturday, and received a decent response. He was followed by Dr. Chesser, who said he'd recently visited the archives and had confirmed much of Mantik's OD measurements, and that he agreed with the bulk of Mantik's conclusions. (I don't recall if he said he agreed with the bit about the x-rays showing a large hole on the back of the head, but seem to think he did not.) He did, however, offer up one bit of detail that led me to believe he was sincere in his embrace of Mantik's findings. He claimed he confronted the archives over one of Mantik's findings--that there appeared to be emulsion over the writing on the x-rays they brought him, which proved they weren't the originals. He said that after he pointed this out, the archives staff grumpily brought out some x-rays in which the writing was on top of the emulsion...the originals. In other words, Chesser claimed he saw the originals, and suggested that Mantik had not. I don't think he would have made this claim if he was just there to prop up Mantik.
4. In any event, Bethesda witness James Jenkins was up next. Mantik interviewed Jenkins and William Law about a series of interviews they'd conducted some time back... The night before they discussed and played some of a new blu-ray of Jenkins discussing Kennedy's wounds with Paul O'Connor, Jim Sibert, Jerrol Custer, and Dennis David. On Saturday, if I recall, they played some of an interview in which several of Kennedy's honor guard were reunited with Jenkins and some of the Bethesda staff, to talk about the events of 11-22-63. In any event, I spoke to Jenkins afterward, and he confirmed, yet again, that the back of Kennedy's head between his ears was intact, but with shattered skull beneath the scalp. I then explained to him that ever since he spoke on the 50th, some have tried to use his words to suggest the back of the head was blown out, and that Horne and Mantik have tried to put this all together and have come up with Humes' performing some sort of pre-autopsy alteration of the head wounds. At this, Jenkins shook his head in disgust, and said something along the lines of "What are you gonna do? People are gonna think whatever they want to think." He then told me and several witnesses that he was with the body from its arrival until the beginning of the autopsy, and that the events described by Horne didn't happen at any morgue he'd been to. I then sought clarification by asking him if he meant that there was another morgue room down the hall that could have been used to do such a thing, and he looked at me like I was flat-out stupid and said there was but the one room where they could have done anything, and that it didn't happen there.
5. Next up was the producer of a new documentary on the Parkland Doctors. "Oh boy", I thought, "here we go. Some guy no one's ever heard of is gonna say he saw a blow-out wound on the back of the head, and everyone is going to ooh and ahh." But that's not what happened at all. Three doctors came onstage and told their stories: Salyer, Loeb, and Goldstrich, if I recall. Salyer was quite adamant that the head wound was on the temporal region in front of the ear, Loeb said it was on the top of the head, and Goldstrich never commented on the head wound. It was around this time, moreover, that I looked up and saw William Newman standing on the side of the room. I'd spoken to Newman before and he had confirmed his earliest statements and said that he saw a wound by the ear, and had failed to see one on the back of the head.
The thought then occurred that I'd slipped into an alternate universe. I mean, here I was at a convention dominated by conspiracy theorists, the majority of whom fervently believe the medical evidence was faked and that we should believe the eyewitnesses, and here were four witnesses in the room claiming to have seen Kennedy's head wound, all of whom were claiming to have seen it in a location that runs counter to where most CTs think the wound was located. And here was Dr. Mantik saying we should believe there was a wound in the location proposed by most CTs...because the x-rays prove it!!!!
In the minds of many of those in attendance at the conference, everything had been reversed... The authenticity of the x-rays now trumped the accuracy of the witnesses!!!
Welcome to Bizarro-World!!!
I received this email from Dr. Michael Chesser in response to Pat Speer's comments [above]. The relevant portion is posted here with his permission:
Hi Greg,
I've attached my presentation with notes. I'm very disappointed to read Pat's
comments. I didn't say that David had not seen the original x-rays - I have no
idea where he [speer] got that. My slide covering the left lateral skull x-ray
describes what happened at NARA when I viewed that film. The NARA personnel
overheard me dictating, and when I dictated my thoughts that the T shape was
covered by emulsion, they immediately left the room and came back with Martha
Murphy, who told me that a mistake had been made, and that I had been looking at
the HSCA copies. She appeared upset - I thought at the time that she was upset
with the personnel in the room, but I of course can't know what she was
thinking. The T shape appeared odd, and it lit up and stood out from the
background when I would shine my flashlight from one angle, but I couldn't
actually see a wax mark on the surface of the emulsion. I still don't know how
to interpret this. I can see how David concluded there is emulsion over the T
shape, because the surface is smooth.
I agree with David that there is an occipital skull defect, separate from the
white patch, and I think it is probably where the Harper fragment was
located. What convinced me more than anything else is the appearance of the
scalp retraction photograph.
[end quote]
It seems clear to me that Pat merely misunderstood or misinterpreted what he heard at the presentation. An honest mistake, of course.
-
From "Reclaiming History":
"In addition to the testimony of the Parkland doctors, conspiracy theorists cite the recollections and testimony of several eyewitnesses in attendance at the autopsy as further "proof" that the exit wound was to the right rear or back of the president's head. Once again, these eyewitness accounts (some of them, recollections over three decades old) are supposed to supersede the autopsy photographs and X-rays that show the large defect was primarily to the right front.
Remarkably, the list by conspiracy theorists of eyewitnesses to this supposed back-of-the-head exit wound is so expansive it frequently even includes two of the autopsy pathologists, Drs. Humes and Boswell, who we know concluded that the bullet exited in the right front of the skull. Apparently the fact that they mentioned in their autopsy summary that the large exit defect "extended somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions" got them a ticket into the club of rear-exit believers.
Indeed, even Captain John H. Stover, commanding officer of the Naval Medical School, who reported in 1978 that he saw
"a wound on the top of the head," qualified for the back-of-the-head list.
The list includes three Secret Service agents (William Greer, Roy Kellerman, and Clint Hill) and two FBI agents (James Sibert and Francis O 'Neill) whose testimony points to a right-rear or back-of-the-head exit wound.
The above is not to suggest that all of the lay witnesses at the autopsy thought the exit wound was to the right rear or back of the president's head. For instance, James Curtis Jenkins, a lab technician during the autopsy, told HSCA investigators that the large head wound was to the "middle temporal region back to the occipital." [see MD65; Page 4]
Chester Boyers, the chief petty officer in charge of the lab at Bethesda who was present at the autopsy, said the exit wound was to the right front of the president 's head.
Richard A. Lipsey, a personal aide to General Wehle, told the HSCA it was obvious that a bullet "entered the back of his head and exited on the right side of his head."
Also, at the London trial, Paul O'Connor, the naval hospital corpsman who assisted in the president's autopsy, testified he "assumed" that the bullet to the president's head "had hit him from the rear and had come out the front only because of what other physical evidence was present."
When I said to O'Connor, "You told me over the phone that this large massive defect to the right frontal area of the president's head gave all appearances of being an exit wound, is that correct?"
O'Connor: "Yes, on the front."
None of the aforementioned people or witnesses had a close-up view of the president's head. Only four people in the autopsy room did, the three autopsy surgeons and John Stringer, the chief medical photographer for the navy at the autopsy who took the only photographs of the president's head.
When I spoke to Stringer, he said there was "no question" in his mind that the "large exit wound in the president's head was to the right side of his head, above the right ear." And in an ARRB interview on April 8, 1996, Stringer said, "There was a fist-sized hole in the right side of his head above his ear." [MD227; Page 3]
Though, as we shall see later, Stringer's recollection of matters is questionable, he said he remembers this very clearly. When I asked him if there was any large defect to the rear of the president's head, he said, "No. All there was was a small entrance wound to the back of the president's head. During the autopsy, Dr. Humes pointed out this entrance wound to everyone."
So we see that all four people who were much closer to the president's head than anyone else, and whose business it was, as opposed to the many other people in the room, to know where the wounds were, have no question in their mind that the exit wound was to the right front side of the president's head, not the rear."
-- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 408-410 of "Reclaiming History:
The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (2007)
I could refute or discredit every single one of the example testimonies given here by Bugliosi and quoted by DVP. But I know it would make no difference to DVP, and Bugliosi is dead. So I won't waste my time.
But for anyone who sees DVP's post and is wondering about these people's testimonies, I suggest they look for the complete history of these people's testimonies on Dr. Aguliar's List of Head Wound Witnesses and decide for themselves what is fact and what is fiction. Just do a search on the page for the person's name.
Almost every witness to Kennedy's head wound said that there was a large hole on the rear right side of the head. Dr. Aguliar lists over forty of them, all of them professionals and most of them medical professionals. Some of them changed their minds when they were told that the autopsy photos showed no hole on the back of Kennedy's head. Others held their ground and insisted that the photos had been doctored.
-
[Jenkins] is quite specific and quite clear when you talk to him, however, on several points, which all too many people seem unwilling to grasp. 1. The back of the head between the ears was not a gaping hole upon the body's arrival at Bethesda. It was shattered like an eggshell beneath the scalp. (Note: radiology tech Jerrol Custer, who helped position the skull for the x-rays, said much the same thing.)
Pat,
Jenkins told David Lifton that there were skull fragments in the casket. He describes their putting them back together, and his description included the following:
"I would say the parietal and occipital section on the right side of the head -- it was a large gaping area .... I'm laying my hand on the back area of my skull .... if I spread my fingers and put my hand back there, that probably would be the area that was missing .... When they put it back together, it would probably have been about the size of your fist -- which was an actual hole missing."
If there was no hole in the back of the scalp, how did the fragments of bone escape?
Furthermore, later in the interview Jenkins commented on the back-of-head autopsy photographs:
"When I told Jenkins that autopsy photographs showed that the back of the head was essentially intact, except for a small bullet entry wound at the top, he was incredulous. 'That's not possible, That is totally--you know, there's no possible way. Okay? It's not possible.' "
(Best Evidence, 1980, page 616, 617)
Apparently either Jenkins' story has changed, or you have misremembered what he told you.
[Jenkins] is quite specific and quite clear when you talk to him, however, on several points, which all too many people seem unwilling to grasp. 1. The back of the head between the ears was not a gaping hole upon the body's arrival at Bethesda. It was shattered like an eggshell beneath the scalp. (Note: radiology tech Jerrol Custer, who helped position the skull for the x-rays, said much the same thing.)Jerrol Custer told David Lifton that the wound in the skull was posterior in the skull and said that
".... he exposed, and returned to the morgue, X- rays showing that the rear of the President's head was blown off."
(Best Evidence , p. 620)
FWIW, in May 29, 1992 and November 18, 1993 press conferences Custer repeated his consistent claim that the current X-rays are forgeries.
-
Sandy:
When you follow the entire transaction from beginning: that is on the day Oswald was supposed to write the money order, his time cards are all filled up; to the end: that is how could he pick up the rifle if the PO box was not in his name-- and everything in between is just as questionable--then the odds of the money order being genuine are quite unlikely.
This is why i never like to evaluate a piece of evidence in this case at one isolated step. Because sooner or later there is a break, and something fishy happens.
Ah, okay. I thought that's what you meant, but I wanted to be sure.
I edited that post where I said I hadn't studied the whole rifle-purchase thing. What I meant to say was that I hadn't studied it carefully. I actually am aware of the issues you mention. I just like to study things like these in depth before I accept them as fact. It's not a terribly difficult thing to do If the source material is referenced.
-
Can somebody tell me what the motivation might have been to fabricate the alleged lunchroom encounter?
One reason is that if Oswald was on the first floor or outside, it is simple not possible for him to have run from the sixth floor down that far in the necessary time frame.
Okay..... But there is just a one-floor difference between first and second floor. If a cover story was to be fabribicated, it seems that the "third or fourth" floor story would have been a better one.
-
Jim,
What do you mean when you say "you will see why this does not at all follow logically from that."? What are "this" and "that?"
And in "the rest makes it very unlikely." The rest makes what unlikely?
-
Let's review....
>>> Oswald's writing is on the Hidell money order (per multiple handwriting analysts---all of whom were total boobs or incompetents or liars, per people like DiEugenio).
>>> Klein's stamp is on the back of the M.O.
>>> A File Locator Number is on the M.O. (which is ONLY put there AFTER the M.O. has gone to the FRB).
>>> The M.O. is found just where it should be found (per CD75) on 11/23/63---the Federal Records Center in Alexandria/Washington.
>>> The "bleed thru" issue is now a total NON-issue, as proven by Tim Brennan (via his pointing out the "No Bleed-Thru" status that exists in the M.O. as seen in Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, below....)
But all of the above is FAKE/FRAUDULENT, per many CTers.
You're fighting a losing battle, CTers. The money order was handled by Oswald, Klein's, and the FRB. Maybe it's time for conspiracy theorists to accept that fact.
David,
Personally I view the lack of a bank endorsement as just a suspicious thing. How suspicious depends on how unusual it was for a bank not to stamp a PMO. I hope to learn more about that from Armstrong.
It will be even more suspicious (MUCH more) if it turns out that the PMO processing facility also routinely stamped PMOs on the back. But I suspect they didn't do so, given that they stamped the front side with a file locator number.
In the end it's the totality of evidence that makes me decide whether or not something was forged.
EDIT: I should mention that I haven't studied in-depth any of the other issues surrounding the rifle purchase. So it will be some time before I have a feel for the "totality of the evidence" regarding it.
EDIT 2: Added the phrase "in depth" to the above edit. Because I *am* aware of the other issues.
-
Can somebody tell me what the motivation might have been to fabricate the alleged lunchroom encounter?
-
It's a confusing building, Ray. Maybe that's one of the reasons it was chosen. It has a passenger elevator that only goes to up to the fourth floor, stairs near the front door that only go up to the second floor, a basement that's half above ground and half under ground, split-level stairways, eccentric freight elevators, etc. Baker was a motorcycle cop, not an architect. He had lots on his mind. No wonder he was confused. If I had been Baker, I, too, probably would have been confused, when I was writing my report, about which floor I had encountered Oswald on in that darn building.
But Baker didn't take take the passenger elevator, the stairs near the front door, or a freight elevator, did he? (At least not before taking the back stairs.) If not, then he wouldn't have known how confusing the building is.
-
CRAIG LAMSON SAID:
Actually all [sandy Larsen] did is prove [that bank stamping] was not a requirement. The salient word here is SHOULD. Not shall or must.
That's right folks. The purpose of the following rule in the Federal Reserve Banks' regulation:
"All cash items [checks & PMOs] sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve
Bank direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to
the order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the
order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar
endorsement. ... 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."
is to tell commercial banks that bank endorsements are not necessary. And not only that, but if commercial banks insist on endorsing the items, the FRBs want them to know that the endorsements don't need to be dated or show the ABA transit number.
Yes, that is the purpose of this clause according to Craig Lamson. Because the word "should" was used instead of "shall." <roll eyes>
Can you imagine ALL banks deciding NOT to endorse checks because of this silly interpretation?
Now let's get real. Here's the definition of "should":
should /SHood/
verb
1. used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when
criticizing someone's actions.
2. used to indicate what is probable.
3. expressing the conditional mood.
4. used in a clause with “that” after a main clause describing feelings.
5. used in a clause with “that” expressing purpose.
6. (in the first person) expressing a polite request or acceptance.
7. (in the first person) expressing a conjecture or hope.
8. used to emphasize to a listener how striking an event is or was.
The only one of these definitions that fits is "1. used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions."
So according to the rule, banks: 1) are obliged; 2) have the duty; and/or 3) are correct to stamp checks and postal money orders with their endorsement. And banks: 1) are obliged; 2) have the duty; and/or 3) are correct to include on their endorsement stamp the date and their ABA transit number.
-
Robert,
I haven't studied in detail the events you guys are discussing here in this thread. Can you tell what the motivation might have been for concocting the lunchroom encounter between Oswald and Baker?
-
I have renewed interest given that I have since shown that bank endorsements were indeed required on PMOs. Though I don't think there is much more I personally can do on this issue. Given personal circumstances, I don't have the wherewithal to be conducting personal interviews or other such highly involved inquiries. That's why I am interested in reading John Armstrong's report on this.
Sandy....
Thanks SO MUCH for your serious research and contribution to this thread!! Your private message has been forwarded to JA.
Your work is MOST APPRECIATED!!!!
--Jim
Thanks Jim.
-
Mrs. SANDERS advised that this morning she called GERALDINE REID, another employee, telephone number FE 1-6617, who told her that the police officer who had first entered the building ran into the lunch room where Mr. TRULY, the warehouse manager, and OSWALD were evidently lunching. The police officer put his gun into OSWALD's stomach but TRULY advised the police officer that OSWALD worked for him. Police officer turned turned away and evidently left the area. She said according to REID, OSWALD then went to the main office and REID, although she [Mrs Reid] had not observed the initial incident with the police officer, told OSWALD that the President had been shot. According to SANDERS, Mrs. REID claimed that OSWALD just mumbled something and left the office. She said Reid did not mention how OSWALD left the office or for that matter if she knew how he might have left the building.
If I am reading this right, not only is Mrs. Sanders' testimony of the lunchroom incident hearsay, it is hearsay of hearsay. Right?
Now, why don't we make this discussion complete and take a look at the other two witnesses who "saw" Baker (and Truly) ascending the steps of the TSBD?
Well, I for one would be interested in hearing about the other two witnesses. I've always found it odd that Officer Baker pulled his gun on Oswald for no apparent reason. Also, some time ago I read that Baker made a comment to Truly shortly afterward that Oswald was a dangerous man. What could have triggered that? (I've seen that statement mentioned just that one time, so maybe it was just some commenter's imagination running wild.)
-
TOM SCULLY SAID:
It follows that, after FBI lab "processing" of the $21.45 postal money order, it was much less authoritive for the purposes of evidentiary value than the "official" photographs of that money order taken before processing.
I expect [Albert] Doyle and other interested parties do not fully understand the Federal Reserve Bank role and the fact that no human examined automatically processed money orders for endorsements, ....
It is still true today, of course, that endorsement stamps are rarely looked at after a check is handed to a bank teller.Nevertheless, bank stamps are still widely used even after fifty years of improved automation and technological advances. I looked at several of my canceled checks yesterday and every single one had at least one bank stamp. (One exception was a check I wrote out to my own bank. Naturally that one doesn't require a stamp.) So the fact that bank stamps aren't looked at doesn't mean they aren't required, or at the very least used as a matter of good banking practice.
Even as recently as 2001 (or nearer) bank stamps were required by federal law on postal money orders, as I have proven. Even though they generally aren't looked at.
....which were not required, anyway, ....
Yes, bank stamps were required, as I have proven. And as there is evidence for, but no known independent evidence against.
....and lack of presence of had no effect on processing or claim of payment by First National Bank of Chicago.
Where is the proof or even evidence for that statement? Even the later regulation, dated 1969, explicitly stated that such cash items might be returned for proper endorsement. (Though, as a practical matter, I suspect Scully's statement is correct. At least for a large majority of PMOs.)
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I imagine that even Sandy Larsen at The Education Forum by this time is pretty much convinced the Hidell M.O. was not a faked or forged document. The excellent VISUAL proof that the M.O. (as seen in Cadigan No. 11) does not show any of the bleed-thru that CE788 exhibits is likely the thing that will tip the scales for Sandy in the direction of "There's No Forgery Here".
Yes, that has tipped the scale for me. But not all the way. Just enough to say the Hidell PMO is not a smoking gun, but rather just another anomaly that MAY be due to forgery. Now, where exactly the scale points depends upon how common it was for a bank to leave a PMO unendorsed. If not likely, then forgery is indicated; if likely, then no forgery is indicated.
I apply rules of logic and statistics when making assessments. My assessment changes and becomes more refined as more information is gathered.
Particularly after Sandy said this to me four days ago:
"I wouldn't be questioning the money order if missing stamps was the only irregularity. I might have even dropped it today or sometime soon if it weren't for the ink bleeding thru. But naturally I don't intend on spending a great deal more time on this aspect of the case. There are other more important things to investigate. I chose this only because it seemed to be simple at the time. The bleeding ink is harder to understand than the missing stamps." -- Sandy Larsen; Dec. 2, 2015
I have renewed interest given that I have since shown that bank endorsements were indeed required on PMOs. Though I don't think there is much more I personally can do on this issue. Given personal circumstances, I don't have the wherewithal to be conducting personal interviews or other such highly involved inquiries. That's why I am interested in reading John Armstrong's report on this.
-
TIM BRENNAN SAID:
The Money Order Bleed-Thru Problem Explained....
One of the reservations expressed about the veracity of [the Hidell money order] is the apparent "bleed thru" effect of the postal stamp and other details, given that US Postal Money Orders were actually of a computer punch card type by this time in 1963.
However, it seems that this issue can be explained. The card was subjected to a chemical process, which bleaches and makes inks run, in order to establish whether or not there were latent fingerprints upon it.
After this, a process known as "desilvering" was applied to the card to return it as much as possible to its previous state, though obviously some effects of the fingerprinting process, like ink run, remained in place.
Fortunately, though, FBI handwriting expert James C. Cadigan examined the card and had it photographed BEFORE the fingerprinting process took place. This is a much CLEARER copy of the Money Order, Cadigan's handwriting arrows notwithstanding ----> CADIGAN EXHIBIT NO. 11.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Excellent, Tim!
Thank you for pointing out the difference between the photos of the money order. The picture of the M.O. as seen in Cadigan Exhibit No. 11 most certainly does not exhibit the bleed-thru that is apparent in Commission Exhibit No. 788.
Here's a direct comparison of the two exhibits:
~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks again, Tim Brennan, for this discovery. It looks like you've just hammered one more nail into the coffin of the "Money Order Is Fake" theory.
Source link:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/0wrJY1LBj78/knAU6EFkBwAJ
Brilliant!
That makes things easier for me. Thanks Tim Brennan and DVP!
-
Sandy, the 1970 article describes the new clearing center policy, not the policy of any FRB.
But the new clearing center was owned and operated by the Richmond FRB . Surely either the Richmond FRB or the Federal Reserve Board of Governors set the clearing house's policies. Or maybe all the FRBs as a whole did.
The clearly center's fine-sort policy may have been totally unconnected to the 1974 fine-sort policy of the New York FRB and 1979 Fine-Sort Program, if that's what you're getting at.
But all that means that commercial banks were fine sorting by 1970, before the FRBs would accept them.
Yes, fine sorting was being done by member banks of clearing house associations (like the New York Clearing House Association) even before the Federal Reserve was created, and continued to do so afterward.
Still, as for the when the FRB fine-sort program was implemented, I must concede.
-
Yes, you're absolutely correct (I think), Sandy. It would appear that the 1960 document that I referred you to is talking only about the sorting methods of checks AFTER the checks (and probably money orders too) got to a Federal Reserve Bank.
If somebody can show where Sandy is wrong about what he said in his last post about "fine sorting", I'll be happy to update this part of this never-ending battle concerning "The Money Order". (Are you listening, Tom Scully? I'm sure he is.)
I must say, this lengthy debate, featuring more ups and downs than an Otis elevator, has got to be the weirdest, most incredible odyssey I've ever been associated with when it comes to any sub-topic dealing with the JFK assassination. It's simply been unbelievable.
Victory (or so it seems). Then defeat. Then a (partial) victory---or so it seems. Then the rug gets pulled out from underneath somebody yet again in the very next post. Absolutely mind-boggling. It's endless. I've never seen anything like it in all my born days here at the CIA Disinfo Center at Langley. ~wink~
But at this point--as I reach for more aspirin while I wallow in my latest defeat (or so it seems) at the hands of Sandy Larsen regarding the "fine sort" matter--I want to repeat a couple of important things that I have mentioned earlier in this saga, which are things that, in my own opinion, prove the conspiracists are 100% wrong when they cry "That money order is a fake!" ....
"The TWO most important things (IMO) that establish the 1963 Hidell money order as being a legitimate and valid document are: Oswald's writing on the money order (as determined by multiple handwriting analysts in 1964 and 1978 -- Cole, Cadigan, McNally, and Scott) and the Klein's "Pay To The Order Of First National Bank" stamp on the back of the money order. So we KNOW from the above two things that Oswald handled and wrote on that money order and Klein's Sporting Goods handled and stamped the same document. And the above two things are true, IMO, even without any other bank markings present on the document." -- DVP
And let me also repeat this comment from several weeks ago in this discussion....
"As for the lack of any bank stamps appearing on the back of Oswald's postal money order, I don't have a definitive answer to explain it. But I'd be willing to bet the farm that there IS a reasonable and non-conspiratorial answer to explain the lack of markings on the back of that document without resorting to the conclusion that the money order was manufactured and faked by a group of conspirators in a complicated and intricate effort to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for John F. Kennedy's murder." -- DVP
Thank you. And good night.
David I thoroughly enjoyed your synopsis of this thread. It truly has been a roller coaster ride. Mind if I borrow a couple of those Excedrin?
-
You're talking about the "fine-sort program," where the bank does the sorting so that the Federal Reserve Bank doesn't have to.
[...]
I think it's time for Tom Scully to eat a little humble pie. He keeps pounding on the fine-sort program, like that explains how it is that the money order hasn't any bank stamps on it. Well guess what, Mr. Scully... the fine sort program wasn't established till 1979. It was first tested in a pilot program in 1970 at the Washington-Baltimore Regional Check Clearing Center. In 1974 it was implemented at the New York FRB only. And in 1979 the program was expanded to all FRBs.
You're wrong, Sandy.
Pictured below are two illustrations dug up by Tom Scully that prove such a "fine sorting" system was in place as early as April 1960.
HERE is the 1960 source document which contains the images below.
Click to enlarge:
No David, I'm right.
Both of those diagrams above represent processing facilities at Federal Reserve Banks, NOT commercial banks. Everywhere it says "fine sorted" it is referring to the fine sorting done by FRBs. Fine sorting isn't a fancy type of sorting method. It is just a very thorough and precise type of sorting that is required to properly route checks to their paying banks. Prior to 1974/1979, FRBs did the fine sorting. The reason they introduced the fine-sorting program was to allow banks to do the sorting themselves so they could save money. Because FRBs charged money for the service. And some banks figured they could do it at a lower cost.
Fine sorting is analogous to pre-sorting outgoing mail, which some businesses do to lower their postage costs.
That 1960 article doesn't even mention the fine-sort program.
JFK Autopsy X-rays Proved Fraudulent
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Pat,
Why do you believe it would be necessary for Dr. Mantik to do tests on the equipment used to make the x-ray? Radiologists can read x-rays without knowing anything about the equipment used to make them. Furthermore, Dr. Mantik used the optical density of the petrous temporal bone as a frame of reference for all his measurements, thereby expressing them as ratios, thus taking into account variations in exposure levels and film processing.