Sandy Larsen

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.

Ah! Turns out my eyes weren't deceiving me after all. As far as I can tell, that first-floor extension is now gone... at least on the west end of the building. Correct me if I'm wrong. So what I see in the top photo isn't the TSBD proper, but rather the extension. Thanks David!

First look at this still: That's the west end of the TSBD in the background. There is nothing but parking lot west of that. Okay, now look at this short video: Looking at the 2nd story of the TSBD, the southwest corner of it can be seen just to the left of the right-most traffic sign. HOWEVER, there appears to be something extending west of that on the bottom floor. There is a dark rectangular area that has within five whitish diamond shapes arranged the way they would be on dice. It looks like it has a flat roof over it. The left end of the "roof" looks like it is attached to another building-like structure. This is all supposed to be parking lot, as seen in the top photo. Please explain how my eyes are fooling me.

LOL

Nice dodge. Your guess wasn't the problem. But you already know that. It was your blind faith that "this Harvey and Lee information" was accurate to start with. This is what it says on the Harvey and Lee site: In January, 1953, the House on Un-American Activities in New York had a file on a "Marguerite Oswald." This file contained references to 1941, Nazi's, New Jersey, and was eventually discovered in a CIA office of Security file. The Assassination Records Review Board requested this file, which apparently contained background information related to "Marguerite Oswald," but their request was denied. http://harveyandlee.net/Early/Early.html You and countless others have all fallen for it. There was NO file on Marguerite. Pure and simple. Armstrong made it up by turning "Mrs. Oswald" into Marguerite Oswald. Greg, Have you brought this inaccuracy to John Armstrong's attention so that he can fix it on his website and in his book should there be another edition?

Oliver Stone should set WCR supporters back another 25 years with a prequel named Dulles, based on Talbot's book.

LOL

Isn't that scene from Darnell after he left the rail road yards and came back to the plaza? Does anyone know for sure? Three women and one boy by the pergola could be a big clue, perhaps an obvious one. Did anyone ever consider this? I wouldn't put it up if I didn't halfway like it. Images on the right from Linda's finds in the "Who saw Baker..." thread. Size/build looks good, look how her hairstyle changed since high school, it's close, (I removed the glasses btw but avoided the area near her eyebrows), that dandy little nose is a great match and what if she was a "little" redhead just like "Hicks"? Would it help? Was it common for a woman to bleach her hair back then?

LOL You forgot "Terrible Yucks," Ron. Ron Ecker yields only: Corn Reek Sandy Larsen yields: Anal Dryness I guess I'll be buying myself some Tucks pads next time I go out.

Thank you, Jon. Is the diary meant to chronicle postal money orders in general (how they changed in 1963) or the contentions surrounding the Hidell PMO specifically (how they have changed and been resolved)? Or something else? Oh I know... you were speaking figuratively.

Greg and David, Anybody with a brain can see that FRB Revision 4928 of Operating Circular No. 4 states that checks, postal money orders, and other cash items listed, are to be bank stamped. Period. You don't need to be a lawyer to see that.. you just need to be able to read English. Greg, you don't need to follow the thread to understand the issue. Just read post #402 on page 27. Then read the rest of this post. It's the whole thing in a nutshell. DVP throws out a lot of stuff just to see what sticks. He thinks PMOs should be handled a certain way, and so he proposes they must have been handled that way. Hank does a similar thing by saying it makes no sense to bank-stamp documents in a day and age when modern technology antiquates the practice, while at the same time completely ignoring the fact that that very practice continues even today, 50 years later. There's no talking sense to them, and I have given up. Only Lance Payette comes close to believing a reasonably possible contrary explanation. He believes that national banks were aware that PMOs didn't really need bank endorsements -- even though the operating circular says otherwise -- and so they didn't stamp them. The problem is that he offers no evidence to back up his claim. As for Thomas... he seems just to be a cheerleader for anybody who disputes the bank stamp problem. I suspect one of the following: 1. He's anti-Armstrong. 2. He's anti-DiEugenio. 3. He's not open to the possibility that Oswald didn't buy the rifle. (That is, he's not being open-minded.) 4. _____________________ [Thomas, fill in the blank.] BTW Greg, like you I credit DVP with a couple of posts that were helpful to the money order issue, though not to this thread specifically. It's unfortunate that he posts so much irrelevant stuff, because I find I don't have time to read it all. Which is sad because there might be some useful nuggets among it all that I will never see as a result.

Why? Because both Mrs. Reid and Oswald said so. But if the FBI agent wrote that statement and not Baker and if Baker made no OTHER reference to a coke, then I take it back about him recalling it was a mirage. In fact, based on this information, I'll go one better and chalk this one up for the LIN side by saying it is now rendered non-suspicious. Yep. The LNs got something right. They just have no clue as to why they are right. I will explain in the paper I'm writing for this joint. I don't understand Greg. What exactly is non-suspicious? Of course it is suspicious that Baker dictated the words "drinking a coke," just like it's suspicious that he dictated the words about the lunchroom encounter. Right?

I have seen Baker's second-day statement and, of course, noticed the crossed off "drinking a coke." He also crossed off something and replaced it with "[second] floor." I'll bet the crossed off words are "[second] or third floor," judging from what he wrote on his first-day statement. I studied the statement for a few minutes and I'm certain the the handwriting is SA Burnett's. It was a bit confusing at first because I compared the letters "s" first. Burnett apparently has two different ways of writing S, and that confused me. But after that it became clear that the handwriting is his. The only things Baker wrote were his signature and initials. The obvious next question is, did Baker dictate what was written, or was it fabricated by Burnett or someone else. Given the corrected floor number, it seems reasonable to conclude that Baker dictated his statement. (Baker approximates floor levels) So it appears that Baker dictated the phrase "drinking a coke." Later, someone -- presumably Burnett -- crossed the phrase off. What we could use is a list of every mention of the word "coke" to see if we can figure out who first came up with that. It seems like Oswald may have mentioned coke himself. Didn't he say he ate lunch on the first floor and then went to the 2nd floor to get a coke? If so, someone may have told Baker about the coke when they told him about the lunchroom meeting. Hey, isn't Oswald on the record saying that Baker stopped him in the lunchroom, gun drawn? If so, that is obviously fabricated I wish I could check into this right now. But I need to sign out soon. BTW, do you know the story behind this statement... the reason it was ripped up and then put back together? EDIT: Oops. I focused on the "M" in the initials thing and not on the following statement of yours: "This is because this statement, given to our old friends the FBI, was taken by SA Richard J. Burnett, and the text of the statement was plainly written by Burnett, and signed by Baker." I could have just said, "I agree." LOL

I didn't miss it. It's only your opinion about that. Your opinion, and four bucks, will get you a coffee at Starbucks. Of course, you can get the coffee for four bucks without the opinion, which pretty much establishes the value of your opinion. Sandy hasn't shown what he set out to show -- note the title of the thread. Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!​ He quoted the wrong section of the postal code to start (quoting a section about disbursement money orders), and it was downhill from there. Oh really, Hank? Where have you been? Postal money orders do indeed require bank stamps. First, you need to understand that Federal Reserve Banks use "operating circulars" to inform banks what their requirements are. A page on the FRB website states the following: "Federal Reserve Financial Services are governed by the terms and conditions that are set forth in the following operating circulars." Having understood that, now let's look at FRB Revision 4928 of Operating Circular No. 4. Dated 1960 and in effect in 1963, it makes the following statements: 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. THEREFORE... Postal money orders required bank endorsement stamps in 1963. Just as they always have. (A fact I've also documented in this thread.) Maybe if you were open to the truth and would actually read my posts, you would have already known this. Asked and answered. We've covered all that ground already. 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. ​What part of PAY TO THE ORDER OF FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO didn't you understand, Sandy? And it certainly sounds like they weren't going to nitpick it, as they also specify they'd be happy "with some similar endorsement". That pay-to stamp from Kleins exactly meets the requirement specified in the paragraph you cite. Doesn't it? Hank It is supposed to be endorsed to the Federal Reserve Bank, Hank. Either by name, or by stamping the back with the following generic text: "Pay to the order of any bank, banker or trust company." Because if it endorsed in a generic way like that, then any such institution can accept the check (or money order, etc.). Read the first paragraph of this legal document, and you will see that it talks about this type of endorsement. Click this to see a draft using this type of endorsement. In addition to the endorsement, paragraph #13 states that the date and bank's ABA number also be stamped.

Yeah. I liked the way Greg Parker described Baker's memory. His short-term memory fades, and later his long-term memory kicks in with a whole new set of facts. LOL, well the way he put it was funny.

Technically speaking, 22/11/63 is the correct way and 11/22/63 is the American way. "correct way" = makes more sense "American way" = we don't care if it makes more sense

The plural 9/23/64's covers all variations of the date. (Technically speaking, though, the date is possessive not plural.)

When I read that, my brain processed it as November 23. I suspect Robert's did the same. And I have a feeling that that is what Richard Gilbride meant to write. Hi Sandy No, Richard is referring to the handwritten statement of Marrion Baker, dated 23/09/64. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_3076.pdf Edit: Did it again. I first wrote the date as 23/11/64 LOL Thanks Robert. 11/22/63 and 11/23/63 testimony trumps 11/23/64 testimony. Or 23/11/64 in Robertese. How about 9/23/64's ? Doh! Yes Tommy, 9/23/64's too.

LOL... you guys.

When I read that, my brain processed it as November 23. I suspect Robert's did the same. And I have a feeling that that is what Richard Gilbride meant to write. Hi Sandy No, Richard is referring to the handwritten statement of Marrion Baker, dated 23/09/64. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_3076.pdf Edit: Did it again. I first wrote the date as 23/11/64 LOL Thanks Robert. 11/22/63 and 11/23/63 testimony trumps 11/23/64 testimony. Or 23/11/64 in Robertese.

When I read that, my brain processed it as November 23. I suspect Robert's did the same. And I have a feeling that that is what Richard Gilbride meant to write.

I didn't miss it. It's only your opinion about that. Your opinion, and four bucks, will get you a coffee at Starbucks. Of course, you can get the coffee for four bucks without the opinion, which pretty much establishes the value of your opinion. Sandy hasn't shown what he set out to show -- note the title of the thread. Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!​ He quoted the wrong section of the postal code to start (quoting a section about disbursement money orders), and it was downhill from there. [Red emphasis Sandy's.] Oh really, Hank? Where have you been? Postal money orders do indeed require bank stamps. First, you need to understand that Federal Reserve Banks use "operating circulars" to inform banks what their requirements are. A page on the FRB website states the following: "Federal Reserve Financial Services are governed by the terms and conditions that are set forth in the following operating circulars." Having understood that, now let's look at FRB Revision 4928 of Operating Circular No. 4. Dated 1960 and in effect in 1963, it makes the following statements: 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. THEREFORE... Postal money orders required bank endorsement stamps in 1963. Just as they always have. (A fact I've also documented in this thread.) Maybe if you were open to the truth and would actually read my posts, you would have already known this.

It does, though Shaw's own role in the story seems a bit odd to this layman. According to Connally himself, a "metal object" fell onto the floor and a nurse picked it up. According to Texas state trooper Billy Nolan, the nurse gave him the bullet in an envelope and he took it to Will Fritz's office. This further implicates Fritz in the cover-up, as his office had the real bullet that Connally was shot with. What I don't understand is, if the bullet in Connally's thigh so easily fell out, why didn't Shaw take it out to start with, instead of waiting? Can't unremoved bullets cause serious infection? According to all the Westerns I've seen, you get bullets out ASAP, you don't see them as no big deal. Is there a doctor in the house? Thanks for the information Ron. It gave me enough keywords that I was able to find the story. The story, in a nutshell, is that TWO people found TWO distinct bullets (one bullet each) on Connally's gurney! Bullet One: As Ron said, "According to Texas state trooper Billy Nolan, the nurse gave him the bullet in an envelope and he took it to Will Fritz's office." Connally said the bullet had fallen to the floor and the nurse picked it up. Nolan said that the nurse told him the bullet "came off of the gurney." Bullet Two: Orderly, Darrell Tomlinson, found CE-399 on a gurney (It probably wasn't Connally's gurney, and a different bullet was probably switched in its place.) It's really hard to believe that both bullets just happened to have been unexpectedly found on gurneys. I suspect that Billy Nolan may have heard the gurney story and only assumed later on that the bullet he had was the one from the gurney. What I don't understand, Ron, is why the WC didn't use the bullet Nolan gave Fritz instead of CE-399. At least that one (likely) had some damage to it. Plus traces of Connally's blood and a simple chain of custody. Oh wait... I know why. It's because that bullet hadn't been shot from the Carcano. This isn't as good a smoking gun as I had imagined. It is for us, but for the uninitiated the story is too complicated.

[deleted]

But the early WC critics... were they unaware of the bullet remaining in Connally's thigh? I'm puzzled by this. Because this seems like a big deal, but it's rarely mentioned compared to other facets of the case. Am I and Greg Parker the only ones who think this is a big deal? Doesn't this revelation spell doom for the SBT, and therefore the lone assassin theory?