Sandy Larsen

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.

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.