Sandy Larsen

Okay, so you admit that you don't know why Lance is right. And you don't know why you say he is right. As for the ball being in my court.... I already posted the proof. Post #2.

Between 1951 and 1987 the requirement for bank stamps on PMOs was published in the Federal Reserve's Regulation J, and also in FRB Operating Circulars. (FRB = Federal Reserve Bank) Here is the FRB requirement for bank stamps on PMOs for 1963, copied from FRB Operating Circular 4928: Items which will be accepted as cash items 1. The following will be accepted for collection as cash items: (1) Checks drawn on banks or banking institutions (including private bankers) located in any Federal Reserve District which are collectible at par in funds acceptable to the collecting Federal Reserve Bank. The “ Federal Reserve Par List,” indicating the banks upon which checks will be received by Federal Reserve Banks for collection and credit, is fur­ nished from time to time and a supplement is furnished each month showing changes subsequent to the last complete list. This list is subject to change without notice and the right is reserved to return without presentment any items drawn on banks which may have withdrawn or may have been removed from the list or may have been reported elosed. (2) Government checks drawn on the Treasurer of the United States. (3) Postal money orders (United States postal money orders; United States international postal money orders; and domestic-international postal money orders). (4) Such other items, collectible at par in funds acceptable to the Federal Reserve Bank of the District in which such items are payable, as we may be willing to accept as cash items. o o o Endorsements 13. All cash items 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. Cash items will be accepted by us, and by other Federal Reserve Banks, only upon the understanding and condition that all prior endorsements are guaranteed by the sending bank. There should be incorporated in the endorsement of the sending bank the phrase, “ All prior endorsements guaranteed.” The act of sending or deliver­ing a cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however, be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty of all prior endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is incorporated in the sending bank’s 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.

Tommy, I've notice in the postal money order debate that you'll agree with nearly anyone who presents an argument that bank stamps weren't required on PMOs in 1963. Maybe you believe they were never required. I've given documentary proof that they were required. Lance Payette disagrees. He claims that bank employees knew that their stamps weren't really required -- in spite of the documents stating they were -- and so they ignored the requirement. I've asked Lance multiple times to give any evidence to support his claim. He never has. What I don't like is that he states his position is if it were fact. But there is apparently no evidence supporting his claim. It's at that point in the debate when you typically give Lance a big congratulations by saying "Thanks .... for showing us that in 1963 postal money orders did not require endorsements or bank stamps." Here's my challenge, Tommy. Prove to me that postal money orders did not require bank stamps in 1963. You can use Lance Payette's material to prove it if you want. Or that Hank guy's material. Or DVP's. Or your own material. But just prove it. Because I want to see why you think Lance is right. In post #2 I will present the proof that bank stamps were indeed required on postal money orders in 1963. You can post your proof after that.

I'll believe that when you prove it, Lance. Who knows... you may even be right. But as of now it is just your opinion that you're trying to pass off as fact. The requirement for bank stamps on PMOs was published in United States Official Postal Guides prior to 1951, which is the year Federal Reserve Banks began processing PMOs. Beginning 1951 the requirement for bank stamps on PMOs was published in Regulation J and in FRB Operating Circulars. Beginning 1987 the requirement for bank stamps on PMOs was published in Regulation CC and in FRB Operating Circulars. (The latest Regulation CC I've looked at is dated 2001. I don't know if the bank stamp requirement has changed since then.) Here is the FRB requirement for bank stamps on PMOs for 1963, copied from FRB Operating Circular 4928: Items which will be accepted as cash items 1. The following will be accepted for collection as cash items: (1) Checks drawn on banks or banking institutions (including private bankers) located in any Federal Reserve District which are collectible at par in funds acceptable to the collecting Federal Reserve Bank. The “ Federal Reserve Par List,” indicating the banks upon which checks will be received by Federal Reserve Banks for collection and credit, is fur­ nished from time to time and a supplement is furnished each month showing changes subsequent to the last complete list. This list is subject to change without notice and the right is reserved to return without presentment any items drawn on banks which may have withdrawn or may have been removed from the list or may have been reported elosed. (2) Government checks drawn on the Treasurer of the United States. (3) Postal money orders (United States postal money orders; United States international postal money orders; and domestic-international postal money orders). (4) Such other items, collectible at par in funds acceptable to the Federal Reserve Bank of the District in which such items are payable, as we may be willing to accept as cash items. o o o Endorsements 13. All cash items 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. Cash items will be accepted by us, and by other Federal Reserve Banks, only upon the understanding and condition that all prior endorsements are guaranteed by the sending bank. There should be incorporated in the endorsement of the sending bank the phrase, “ All prior endorsements guaranteed.” The act of sending or deliver­ing a cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however, be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty of all prior endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is incorporated in the sending bank’s 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.

Speaking of that, does anybody know when holes in the alleged rifle purchase were first discovered? And the PMO problem specifically? Was that as early as the HSCA?

Jon, That's a good write-up, one that I believe to be the case. Unfortunately it is difficult to find any authoritative source on the subject. (I couldn't find one, other than for the actual regulations calling for bank endorsements/stamps.) So some may consider your write-up to be merely your (and my) opinion.

LOL, I read that as "where are you in Conspiracy Theories? (As in, which one do you accept/believe?) "I'm in West Simsbury." Simsbury?? I haven't heard of this author. What's his theory?

Robert, Thanks for posting this nonsense that Humes reported in the autopsy. I was completely unaware of it. It is yet one more inconsistency that LNers should be forced to answer. I wonder how Bugliosi would explain it. I wonder also what the Parkland doctors thought when they read it. I wish Dr. Perry would have called Humes out on it instead of "not being critical." On the other hand, had he done so the HSCA would have probably buried it.

LOL... Hey, maybe that is where the darkroom is!

LOL, yeah I didn't miss that. Every time I read it it cracks me up. But seriously.... Do you have any idea why the ARRB wouldn't be interested in Tanenbaum's testimony? If I recall correctly Gaeton Fonzi had a high opinion of him. He quit the HSCA when Sprague left because he could see that the Committee's effectiveness was going to be compromised. In other words, he seems like one of the "good guys." Maybe you should consider asking the forum members what they make of the mention of this incident by Ford and then by Tanenbaum.

Katzenbach made it perfectly clear that the public should be shown that Oswald was the assassin, even though he hadn't even been tried let alone convicted. And that there was no conspiracy, even though there had hardly been an investigation to show such a thing. And that all the facts be presented in a way that would convince the public of these things. And that is exactly what the Warren Commission did.

Your statement above, of course, assumes that the WC had any "aims" to begin with (such as nailing Oswald to the wall at all costs). I don't think they had any such "aim". Well of course they did. The Katzenbach memo spelled it out.

Wow, I did not know that! Is this common knowledge among the researchers? I've never seen it mentioned.

Then you should be wondering how testimony like this ended up in the 26 volumes.... S.M. HOLLAND -- I counted four shots. .... There were definitely four reports. Mr. STERN -- You have no doubt about that? Mr. HOLLAND -- I have no doubt about it. I have no doubt about seeing that puff of smoke come out from under those trees either. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ JEAN HILL --- I have always said there were some four to six shots. There were three shots---one right after the other, and a distinct pause, or just a moment's pause, and then I heard more. .... At that time I didn't realize that the shots were coming from the building. I frankly thought they were coming from the knoll. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mr. SPECTER -- What is your opinion as to whether bullet 399 could have inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor, then, without respect at this point to the wound of the President's neck? DR. ROBERT SHAW -- I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mr. BALL -- Where was the direction of the sound? BILLY LOVELADY -- Right there around that concrete little deal on that knoll. Mr. BALL -- That's where it sounded to you? Mr. LOVELADY -- Yes, sir; to my right. I was standing as you are going down the steps, I was standing on the right, sounded like it was in that area. Mr. BALL -- From the underpass area? Mr. LOVELADY -- Between the underpass and the building right on that knoll. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mr. BALL -- You say you heard these three sounds which you later thought were probably shots, you thought it came from a certain direction. Can you tell us from what direction as illustrated on the map? .... BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- It is my true opinion, that is what I thought, it sounded like it came from over there, in the railroad tracks. I named this thread "Not all damaging WC testimony was changed. What gives?" What you write here (above) makes my point exactly. Nevertheless, let me clarify my statement, which you apparently misunderstood. I said: "Clearly changes were made to suit the Warren Commission's aims, not to thwart them." What I meant by that was this: "Clearly THE changes THAT WERE MADE were made to suit the Warren Commission's aims, not to thwart them."

I did a little experiment. I read the Before sentence as Pat Speer wrote it, and wrote down in my own words the meaning it conveyed to me. Then I did the same with Pat Speer's After sentences. Afterward I did the same with DVP's versions of the Before and After sentences. Here is what I got: PAT SPEER'S VERSION Before: There is no way of knowing if these fibers came from this shirt. After: These fibers could have come from this shirt. DVP'S VERSION Before: I believe these fibers came from this shirt. After: I'm certain these fibers could have come from this shirt. The change in Pat Speer's version seems to increase the likelihood of the fibers coming from the shirt. The change in DVP's version seems to make little difference. Anyway, the mere fact that changes were made in testimony should be alarming. Not only was it wrong, but surely it was done for a reason. Clearly changes were made to suit the Warren Commission's aims, not to thwart them.

Your point would seem valid, provided that the quotes were as you claimed. But you cut the first one to change the context. Here again is what Stombaugh said: "In my mind I feel that these fibers came from this shirt, but I know of no scientific method to prove this, so therefore I am unable to say this." And here is what it was changed to: "There is no doubt in my mind that these fibers could have come from the shirt. There is no way, however, to eliminate the possibility of the fibers having come from another identical shirt." The key, IMO, is that he'd admitted to bias in his testimony, and that he was willing to go as far as he possibly could go, This is not how the FBI wants to be seen. It wants to be seen as being entirely impartial. In the 90's, of course, the roof caved in and it came out that many FBI experts were routinely testifying way beyond where the science would lead them. The key issue for me, moreover, is that this change was made by "someone," and that there is no record of who this "someone" was. I'm fairly certain that's not legal. But I know full well it's not ethical. Well that explains why what was pointed out sounded completely different coming from David's keyboard as compared to coming from Pat's website! LOL I hope the omission on your part, David, was wholly unintentional.

Jim, I know that rumors about Oswald being an FBI informant were going around, And that a meeting about it took place among WC officials. But the quote above seems a bit pat to have been written by a WC member, especially so soon after the WR was published. Have you actually seen for yourself the quote in Ford's book? I did some searching and all I could find was that it was used in a Novel (and so it could be fiction) and a CTer posted it saying that Mark Lane had written it. I'd appreciate it if you would confirm this. Thanks for asking, Sandy. Yes, I do own a copy of Ford's Portrait of the Assassin. The first interior page has a handwritten note in blue ink: "Warmest personal regards, Gerald R. Ford." The quote from above is taken directly from the second page of Chapter 1. I've scanned the first two pages of the chapter and provided links to the images below ("PAGE 2" has the actual quote): PAGE 1 PAGE 2 Most fascinating about this is that I tried to check very carefully throughout the book, and saw no place where Ford actually attempted to debunk the story, though of course J. Edgar denied it furiously, as you would expect. Thanks for scanning and posting that, Jim. When I was first made aware of this, I wondered why it isn't something that is more discussed and quoted by researchers. Then I realized that, given the source, it is likely considered to be suspicious. Maybe CTers consider it an attempt to throw them off the trail of the truth. It could be that this possible FBI connection was used to throw researchers off the more-damaging CIA path.

Thanks for offering your observations, Pat. You reminded me what I already knew, that there is great deal of testimony in the 26 volumes that contradicts the report. Clearly some of the published testimony was changed. Apparently those doing the changing didn't do so systematically... just when they saw a clear need for it. I'm not sure, however, why they changed some testimony that didn't make it to the report.

Jim, I know that rumors about Oswald being an FBI informant were going around, And that a meeting about it took place among WC officials. But the quote above seems a bit pat to have been written by a WC member, especially so soon after the WR was published. Have you actually seen for yourself the quote in Ford's book? I did some searching and all I could find was that it was used in a Novel (and so it could be fiction) and a CTer posted it saying that Mark Lane had written it. I'd appreciate it if you would confirm this.

Here is Mark Lane exposing the changed testimony of witnesses who said the shots came from the grassy knoll: Mark Lane YouTube Video And yet the WC allowed others to give the same damaging testimony. For example, Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady: Bill Shelley's WC Testimony Billy Lovelady's WC Testimony Many believe that these guys lied for the WC. So why didn't they also lie about the origin of the shots? Thoughts?

Really? A lot of CTers believe JFK was shot higher than he really was? That's very surprising. Can you give some examples? Either famous ones or ones on this forum. Dr. Cyril Wecht Dr. David Mantik Dr. Josiah Thompson Roger Feinman Pat Speer Stuart Wexler Martin Hay John Hunt Jim DiEugenio seems to think they have an argument, apparently, given his hostility toward the clothing evidence. The only way I can explain this is "incompetent research methods," pure and simple. Thanks for the list, Cliff. Maybe they buy into the bunched-up jacket argument. Because if they don't buy that, then it should be obvious that the bullet hit the back around T3, well below the neck. I think some jackets might bunch up some. (Though not four inches.) But a shirt certainly wouldn't. Regardless, the videos and stills don't indicate substantial bunching up.

Pat, When people suggest that a bullet had to have hit at a low velocity, laws of physics tell us that the bullet must have been shot at a close range. Because a low velocity bullet shot from a distance will drop so far as to miss the target. This fact became abundantly clear to me when I was participating in a thread with Robert Prudhomme regarding JFK's back wound. Robert P. (or anybody else), correct me if I am wrong. With this in mind, do you (or anybody else) have any suggestions on where a low-velocity bullet hitting Connally might have been shot from? (Clue: The distance from the TSBD is too far.) BTW, here's the formula for a falling object: d = (g t^2) / 2 where d = the distance dropped, in feet g = 32 is the gravitational acceleration, in ft/s^2 t = the time it takes for the bullet to hit, in seconds This formula illustrates why a high-speed bullet is so crucial to a long-distance shot hitting a moving target. (I say "moving, because for a stationary target the sight can be adjusted to compensate for a large drop.) Since time t in the formula is squared, an increase in time results in a disproportionately greater distance d of drop.In other words, the drop distance increases rapidly as the bullet speed drops. Robert's point was that a bullet striking Kennedy in the back--and then falling out--would have to have been traveling at an extremely low velocity, and that a bullet traveling at such a velocity (presumably 300 fps or less) would have dropped considerably in flight. My comments addressed a different point entirely. The Army conducted tests in which they attempted to replicate Kennedy's and Connally's wounds. These tests demonstrated both that the bullet striking Connally's thigh, wrist, and chest, was traveling at a low velocity, and that a bullet striking Kennedy in the back and exiting his neck without hitting bone would have lost very little velocity. Well, these two conclusions, when combined, suggest that a bullet striking JFK and JBC in the manner suggested by the SBT would most likely have been traveling at a sub-sonic velocity, (1,050 fps or less). Someone, probably Specter, caught this, moreover, and then deliberately mis-quoted and mis-represented Dr. Olivier's testimony to make it seem like his tests supported that the bullet was traveling at a normal velocity. Ah, okay. Got it. FWIW I calculate that the bullet would have dropped less than two inches at a velocity of 1000 ft/s. At 300 ft/s the drop would be more like 18 inches. (Assuming a specific distance.)

Really? A lot of CTers believe JFK was shot higher than he really was? That's very surprising. Can you give some examples? Either famous ones or ones on this forum.

I am somewhat familiar with criminal prosecution, and yes, I can tell you that LHO would have been found guilty, and easily. You can look at it anecdotally when compared to other successful murder convictions, or specifically as to this particular instance, and the result is the same. Marcia Clark could convict LHO in San Francisco, and if juror instructions were given in the AM, they'd likely be home by supper. There are hundreds (thousands?) of murderers who are sitting in prison right now, and who had a fraction of the evidence stacked against them, as Oswald would have. You don't have to like it, or even agree with it, and I'm not even saying that it's "right" - but it's the truth. A second year law student could achieve a conviction. As to your other comments: 1. I'm not sure how name-calling and ad hominem attacks advance the issue, or specifically, your argument. 2. Who jettisoned Dr. Shaw? I merely asked the question which the posted comments begged - should he too be added to the list of conspirators? That you seemingly dislike the fact that those who do not believe in a conspiracy often ask it is immaterial, save this: Why do you think it is that we feel compelled to continually ask it - and who's fault is that? Just something to think about, and to ask yourself. 3. I believe the accounts which I find to be most credible, and which can be supported and/or corroborated by other evidence and fact, wherever possible. Do I think that Dr. Shaw's initial comments, in the excruciating glare of that first day, must be true - simply because it was his first utterance? No. Do I think that later, after some reflection, that Dr. Shaw could have remembered it more clearly, or had been made aware of better information that he did not possess at the time of his initial comments, and this is the simple and understandable reason for his later recanting his story? Yes. Do I believe that his opinion was changed later, as the certain result of a conspiracy and "once the story was straight" - as you claimed in an earlier post? Absolutely not, and in fact, that is not only a preposterous claim which lacks any fact, or even a basis in reality, and which you have simply contrived from your own personal opinion, alone. If I am wrong - please cite the source which supports your claim that Dr. Shaw was later compelled, urged, required, ordered or otherwise made to later change his story. Once provided, and if credible, I will gladly look at it, and admit if I am in error. But if you cannot, and it merely is simply your own opinion, and nothing else, then admit that, and withdraw it. 4. I am not trying to "convert" anyone. We all have different opinions, and I respect them all. Some are just more correct than others, but then, I cannot save anyone from that. Curtis, If Oswald were tried today, I think his attorney could have the case thrown out simply by showing the judge how the Dallas Police Department had confiscated his wallet at the theater, after already finding it at the scene of the Tippet shooting. There are dozens of such irregularities in the JFK assassination. Does that not bother your sensibilities?

Curtis, I'm astonished by the lack of critical acumen you've shown here. But I sure do admire your writing skills.