Sandy Larsen

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 is clearly a Warren Commission ideologue. He believes whatever they want him to believe and disregards the rest.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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. (http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm)

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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 HarveyandLee.net Thanks Jim.

If I am reading this right, not only is Mrs. Sanders' testimony of the lunchroom incident hearsay, it is hearsay of hearsay. Right? 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.)

Brilliant! That makes things easier for me. Thanks Tim Brennan and DVP!

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 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.

I don't think those documents say what you seem to think they do. Yes, of course they mean what I think they do. I've studied them carefully. One of the documents is the announcement for the fine-sort program. It and two of the other documents refer to each other... they are clearly all connected. Only the 1970 document stands alone. I'll save the 1970 document for last because it is the least straightforward. 1974 New York Impementation: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1974_07478.pdf "As part of its continuing program to improve the availability of credit for cash items deposited for collection in the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York will, effective November 1, 1974, accept cash letters containing end-point sorted deposits of cash items payable by or through certain banks (as listed on the attached Pre-Sorted Immediate Credit Items— Cash Letter Recap form) that receive cash letters from this Bank’s Head Office through the New York Clearing House." The phrase "end-point sorted" is synonymous with "fine sorted." A "cash letter" is simply a deposit slip to a FRB. So this is merely stating that the New York FRB (or clearinghouse, because it clears checks) accepts fine-sorted deposits from banks. If you now look at the next document, the 1979 one, you will see that it comments on the New York FRB accepting fine sorted documents "for the past few years (from 1974 to 1979), and that the program is being extended to all the other FRBs. In other words, it is referring to the New York program announced in this document. There is a list of eleven requirements listed in this document. You will see that they follow roughly the eight requirements in the 1974 Fine Sort Regulations document below. 1979 Completed Fine Sort Program: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/nycirc_1979_08621.pdf "Interterritory Fine-Sort Program" "For several years this Bank [the New York Federal Reserve Bank] has provided to authorized senders a later closing hour for the receipt of cash items that are end-point sorted according to paying bank. As part of a continuing effort to improve credit availability for cash items and to discourage remote disbursement practices, this program will be available at all Federal Reserve offices throughout the country beginning August 15, 1979." Look at the title. This document is the Fine Sort Program being announced. And the upper highlighted part is stating that the program has been in place at the New York FRB for "several years." So you see, this is referring to the 1974 program announced above. Note how in the body of the text it uses the phrase "end-point sorted," just as was used in the 1974 announcement above. Again, "end-point sorted" is the same thing as "fine sorted." Just phrased differently. The document continues: "The program at this Bank will continue to operate according to the guidelines listed in paragraph 9 of our Operating Circular No. 5. revised effective July 1, 1974, except that there will no longer be a minimum volume requirement of 200 items per package." This Operating Circular No 5 referred to here is the following 1974 document, directly below this sentence. 1974 Fine Sort Regulations: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1974_07394.pdf "Operating Circular No. 5" "Revised Effective July 1, 1974" "9. As provided in the appendices hereto, this Bank has established a later closing hour for cash letters containing end-point sorted and MICR computer-acceptable cash items payable by or at certain specified banks that receive cash letters from any of our offices: Provided, That the senders of such end-point sorted cash letters have applied for, and received, authorization from this Bank to make such deposits." Look at the title, Operating Circular No 5, Revised Effective July 1, 1974. See, this is the document referred to in the 1979 document above. Quoted here is Paragraph 9 of that document, as referenced in the 1979 document above. This document give a list of eight requirements for the program: "1. End-point sorted cash letters must be enclosed in sealed packages, which should be stamped with the legend “ Pre-Sorted Immediate Credit Items.” 2. Such letters must not contain nonmachineable cash items. All items (except those described in paragraph 3 below) should be fully qualified for high-speed processing. 3. American Express Travelers Cheques and First National City Travelers Checks may be deposited as non-dollar amount encoded items in such cash letters, provided each type of such items is sorted and packaged separately. 4. Each sealed package should contain at least 200 items, and all tape listings and recaps should be clearly identified and dated. 5. Tape listings and recaps of bundles should be included within each sealed package. 6 . Each package should be clearly marked with the names, routing symbols, and A B A numbers of the depositing and paying banks. 7. The total dollar amount of the cash letter should be clearly marked on the package. 8 . The total dollar amount of the packages destined for each of the paying banks must be listed on a Pre-Sorted Immediate Credit Items— Cash Letter Recap form, copies of which will be provided by this Bank, which should accompany each deposit." These eight are roughly equivalent to the eleven requirements given in the 1970 document above. Compare them. True, the requirements had been revised. But you can see they are requiring roughly the same things, like cash letters (deposit receipts) being enclosed in sealed packages. 1970 Washington Pilot Program: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/publications/frbrichreview/rev_frbrich197005.pdf "The Washington-Baltimore Regional Check Clearing Center" "Since its inception the Federal Reserve System has worked with bankers to improve the check collection process on which the nation’s payments system is based. The opening of the Washington-Baltimore Regional Clearing Center on January 2, 1970, represents a major step in that direction. Regional clearing centers are perhaps the best immediate answer to the check collection problem. Moreover, a series of such centers, connected by wire with each other and with their participating banks, could well bridge the gap between the present payments system and the “ checkless society” of the future." "If a participating bank desires, it may fine sort its checks by drawee bank and deliver them to the Center by 5 a.m. for inclusion in the daily shipment." This is the oddball of the four documents, and it predates all the other fine-sort related announcements. It describes a pilot program that uses a number of innovations, including a wire-connected network, for improving the efficiency of check processing. It allowed fine-sorting deposits by its participating banks, and this was four years prior to the writing of the fine-sorting regulations used in the New York fine-sorting program. You say: "I would have expected a great deal more about this wonderful new sorting method." Fine sorting wasn't really a big deal, and it wasn't new. Before banks were allowed to do it, the Federal Reserve Banks did. Allowing banks to do it was just a way for them to save money. Because FRBs charged money for the service, and some banks thought they could do it at a lower cost to them. I think you must be thinking of "high-speed machine sorting," the computer-controlled variety in particular. Now that was a big deal.

If "big banks" did fine sorting in 1963, then how was it possible that sequential file locator numbers (without gaps or overlaps) got printed on the fronts of the PMOs? Tom does understand, doesn't he, that after banks do fine sorting, the checks are finished being processed? At that point the FRBs send them to the paying banks.

You're talking about the "fine-sort program," where the bank does the sorting so that the Federal Reserve Bank doesn't have to. Let me tell you, I've had just about enough of Tom Scully. I've read several of his posts. He ridicules John Armstrong followers (and numerous static web pages) because they're still pushing the old money order theories. Well what does he expect? That they should spontaneously update as he discovers new information? He needles this guy on his forum because he speculates. What's so wrong with speculating, as long as it's clear that that's what you're doing? He also disses the guy for not contributing new material himself. Well maybe the guy isn't into that. Or maybe he contributes elsewhere He claims that only he and Lance Payette are contributing new information re. the money order, and that nobody on Education Forum is. He says that I'm misleading people... and no, he wasn't talking about the disbursement PMOs, he was talking about the laws I've found that ARE on the mark. 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. Nobody at Education Forum is contributing , my azz. Sources: Search for these phrases in the documents: "fine sort," "fine sorted," and "end point sorted." 1970 Washington Pilot Program: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/publications/frbrichreview/rev_frbrich197005.pdf 1974 New York Impementation: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1974_07478.pdf 1979 Completed Fine Sort Program: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/nycirc_1979_08621.pdf 1974 Fine Sort Regulations: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1974_07394.pdf

True, I took some hits with the disbursement PMOs and the missing corner non-issue. But I think I'm on solid ground now. (And I *have* had some other successes, TYVM.) Nothing ventured, nothing gained... right?