David Von Pein Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 (edited) You still can't see how the the word "appear" affects the meaning of a sentence? If the word "appears" is used in a sentence, then the word "factual" should not be used in association with that same sentence, IMO. Because something that merely "appears" to be true is not definitive enough to be labelled "factual". Such as this sentence: It appears that Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald as part of a conspiracy to silence Oswald. The above statement is not "factual" at all. It's simply speculation. Anyway, the quote from John Armstrong that started this mini-debate over the word "factual" is the quote repeated below, which is most definitely not a "factual" claim (and never was)---even though Sandy seems to think otherwise for some odd reason. Nor is the bleed-thru a "strong indication" that the Hidell M.O. was made out of thinner paper stock (and Cadigan No. 11 proves it's not a "strong indication" of that).... "The "bleed-thru" of the ink is a strong indication that postal money order 2,202,130,462, shown as CE 788, was not original card stock." -- John Armstrong Edited December 20, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted December 20, 2015 Author Share Posted December 20, 2015 "The "bleed-thru" of the ink is a strong indication that postal money order 2,202,130,462, shown as CE 788, was not original card stock." -- John Armstrong "I mean the bleed through. I don't see how it can be ignored. It really does seem to me to be a big faux pas, one which the WC apparently swallowed. I mean can someone explain it innocently?" -- James DiEugenio In neither case did the person say anything had been proven. Right on the Armstrong website the following statement is made regarding the bleed-thru: "NOTE: Serious researchers should be focusing attention on the inked postal stamps that appear on the front of the money order (Dallas, TX, Mar 12, 1963), the inked endorsement stamp (Klein's) and the inked initials and dates that appear on the back of this money order. An explanation is needed as to how ink from the postal stamp and ink from the initials/dates can "bleed" thru to the other side of the money order. Postal money orders were made from card stock similar to an index card or an IBM type punch card--between 90# and 110# paper. This paper stock was crisp, firm, and ink "bleed-thru" to the reverse side was virtually impossible. I don't understand why or how ink "bleed-thru" occurred on CE 788. The original postal money order disappeared long ago, and only FBI photographs of CE 788 remain. Who authorized and/or caused the disappearance of the original money order is unknown. Only black and white photographs remain. This ink "bleed-thru" deserves a valid explanation." Armstrong said, "This ink 'bleed-thru' deserves a valid explanation." And now we have it. No claim was made by Armstrong other than the bleed-thru appearing to show that CE 788 was not original card stock.And the claim was factual at the time. Armstrong obviously didn't research this very well, or else he would have discovered the answer in the Warren Commission testimony, as cited previously here by DVP, wouldn't he? There's the rub. I see a lot of allusions to Armstrong's research, but if he couldn't even discover why there was bleed through, then that calls into question how great a researcher he really is. Doesn't it? Hank The paragraph about ink bleeding on the money order isn't in Armstrong's book. It does appear on his website, clearly as an afterthought. And if you read the paragraph you will see that he doesn't claim to have researched it, because he urges "serious researchers" to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted December 20, 2015 Author Share Posted December 20, 2015 You still can't see how the the word "appear" affects the meaning of a sentence? If the word "appears" is used in a sentence, then the word "factual" should not be used in association with that same sentence, IMO. Because something that merely "appears" to be true is not definitive enough to be labelled "factual". Such as this sentence: I used the word "factual" to point out that Armstrong didn't say anything that was untrue. Yes, it was speculation. But he never said anything to indicate it was anything more than speculation. And given what we all knew then, the bleed-thru WAS a "strong indication" (not ABSOLUTE indication) that the money order was not card stock. Now we know better. It appears that Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald as part of a conspiracy to silence Oswald. The above statement is not "factual" at all. It's simply speculation. Well of course your sentence is not factual. Because you present no evidence that might make one conclude a conspiracy existed. In other words, there is nothing to make a conspiracy APPARENT. Let me add a sentence that will make yours factual: "The FBI interviewed a reliable source who overheard a conversation between Jack Ruby and a known mob figure in which the shooting of Oswald was discussed. So it appears that Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald as part of a conspiracy to silence Oswald." In this case your sentence would be factual. Not factual that a conspiracy exists, but that it appears to exist. Anyway, the quote from John Armstrong that started this mini-debate over the word "factual" is the quote repeated below, which is most definitely not a "factual" claim (and never was)---even though Sandy seems to think otherwise for some odd reason. Nor is the bleed-thru a "strong indication" that the Hidell M.O. was made out of thinner paper stock (and Cadigan No. 11 proves it's not a "strong indication" of that).... "The "bleed-thru" of the ink is a strong indication that postal money order 2,202,130,462, shown as CE 788, was not original card stock." -- John Armstrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Sienzant Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) 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. Endorsed to the order of any bank... The Money Order in question has that... It reads: PAY TO THE ORDER OF THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO 50 91144 KLEINS SPORTING GOODS, INC. So it appears you proved the money order has the correct stamp, and all is in good order. Hank REMINDER: The above originally appeared in post #309 in this thread. Hank Edited December 21, 2015 by Hank Sienzant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 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. Endorsed to the order of any bank... The Money Order in question has that... It reads: PAY TO THE ORDER OF THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO 50 91144 KLEINS SPORTING GOODS, INC. So it appears you proved the money order has the correct stamp, and all is in good order. Hank REMINDER: The above originally appeared in post #309 in this thread. Hank Hank, Bingo! Thank you for presenting this to us in such an easy to understand way. --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) 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. Endorsed to the order of any bank... The Money Order in question has that... It reads: PAY TO THE ORDER OF THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO 50 91144 KLEINS SPORTING GOODS, INC. So it appears you proved the money order has the correct stamp, and all is in good order. Hank REMINDER: The above originally appeared in post #309 in this thread. Hank Hank, Bingo! Thank you for presenting this to us in such an easy to understand way. --Tommy Nonsense. There is no mark or endorsement of any kind from the First National Bank of Chicago, which there should be. Nor is there a mark or endorsement from the district FRB or national FRB. No one has ever said there was no rubber stamp appearing to be from Kleins on the money order. That is obvious. Edited December 21, 2015 by Jim Hargrove Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 More evidence the FBI falsified its own reports: CLICK HERE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Sienzant Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) 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. Endorsed to the order of any bank... The Money Order in question has that... It reads: PAY TO THE ORDER OF THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO 50 91144 KLEINS SPORTING GOODS, INC. So it appears you proved the money order has the correct stamp, and all is in good order. Hank REMINDER: The above originally appeared in post #309 in this thread. Hank Hank, Bingo! Thank you for presenting this to us in such an easy to understand way. --Tommy Nonsense. There is no mark or endorsement of any kind from the First National Bank of Chicago, which there should be. Nor is there a mark or endorsement from the district FRB or national FRB. No one has ever said there was no rubber stamp appearing to be from Kleins on the money order. That is obvious. Nonsense. yourself. The quote says "... or endorsed TO THE ORDER OF any bank", Jim. And we have that. PAY TO THE ORDER OF THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO 50 91144 KLEINS SPORTING GOODS, INC. It is endorsed TO THE ORDER OF the First National Bank of Chicago. There is nothing in the specifications provided that says it needs anything further. Your statement that "there should be" an "endorsement ... FROM the First National Bank of Chicago" (as opposed to "TO" the bank) is nowhere to be found in those specifications. [emphasis added throughout] Simply repeating erroneous information doesn't make it more true. Sandy Larsen provided the documentation that established the endorsement from Kleins TO THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO is all that is required. (Thanks, Sandy!) Hank Edited December 21, 2015 by Hank Sienzant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Sienzant Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) Deleted duplicate post Edited December 21, 2015 by Hank Sienzant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I have pretty much lost interest in this thread, this forum, and frankly the JFK assassination, but I remain fascinated by one thing: Where, pray tell, is the "Wilmouth statement" that forms the entire basis of Armstrong's argument in Harvey and Lee that the money order should have four separate endorsements, and why does this question, which cuts to the heart of Armstrong's credibility, keep being ignored? I appear to have asked the Unanswerable Question, something that I thought only occurred in Theology. Lest we forget, we were promised some weeks ago that Armstrong was diligently working on a response that would "soon" expose we money order non-believers as the dolts we are. I, for one, am now prepared to state that the Emperor has no clothes. My like-new copy of Harvey and Lee is on its way to the Goodwill store in Flagstaff, Arizona, where you should be able to pick it up for $1.25 in a week or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Sienzant Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 More evidence the FBI falsified its own reports: CLICK HERE Hi Jim, The subject of this thread is different than the subject you're trying to change it to. That's a LOGICAL FALLACY known as a red herring (AKA "changing the subject"). Let me explain: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html Fallacy: Red Herring Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase. Description of Red Herring A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form: 1.Topic A is under discussion. 2.Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). 3.Topic A is abandoned. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim. Examples of Red Herring •"We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous." •"Argument" for a tax cut: "You know, I've begun to think that there is some merit in the Republican's tax cut plan. I suggest that you come up with something like it, because If we Democrats are going to survive as a party, we have got to show that we are as tough-minded as the Republicans, since that is what the public wants." •"Argument" for making grad school requirements stricter: "I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter for the graduate students. I recommend that you support it, too. After all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Sienzant Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 "The "bleed-thru" of the ink is a strong indication that postal money order 2,202,130,462, shown as CE 788, was not original card stock." -- John Armstrong "I mean the bleed through. I don't see how it can be ignored. It really does seem to me to be a big faux pas, one which the WC apparently swallowed. I mean can someone explain it innocently?" -- James DiEugenio In neither case did the person say anything had been proven. Right on the Armstrong website the following statement is made regarding the bleed-thru: "NOTE: Serious researchers should be focusing attention on the inked postal stamps that appear on the front of the money order (Dallas, TX, Mar 12, 1963), the inked endorsement stamp (Klein's) and the inked initials and dates that appear on the back of this money order. An explanation is needed as to how ink from the postal stamp and ink from the initials/dates can "bleed" thru to the other side of the money order. Postal money orders were made from card stock similar to an index card or an IBM type punch card--between 90# and 110# paper. This paper stock was crisp, firm, and ink "bleed-thru" to the reverse side was virtually impossible. I don't understand why or how ink "bleed-thru" occurred on CE 788. The original postal money order disappeared long ago, and only FBI photographs of CE 788 remain. Who authorized and/or caused the disappearance of the original money order is unknown. Only black and white photographs remain. This ink "bleed-thru" deserves a valid explanation." Armstrong said, "This ink 'bleed-thru' deserves a valid explanation." And now we have it. No claim was made by Armstrong other than the bleed-thru appearing to show that CE 788 was not original card stock.And the claim was factual at the time. Armstrong obviously didn't research this very well, or else he would have discovered the answer in the Warren Commission testimony, as cited previously here by DVP, wouldn't he? There's the rub. I see a lot of allusions to Armstrong's research, but if he couldn't even discover why there was bleed through, then that calls into question how great a researcher he really is. Doesn't it? Hank The paragraph about ink bleeding on the money order isn't in Armstrong's book. It does appear on his website, clearly as an afterthought. And if you read the paragraph you will see that he doesn't claim to have researched it, because he urges "serious researchers" to do so. The quote I saw was: "The "bleed-thru" of the ink is a strong indication that postal money order 2,202,130,462, shown as CE 788, was not original card stock." -- John Armstrong That is wrong. Right? Hank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I have a idea for you Lance. Given that FRB requirements for PMO clearing hasn't changed much since 1960, maybe the Agreement between the U.S. Postal Service and Federal Reserve Banks hasn't changed much either. If you want to prove me wrong about the Agreement being published in operating circulars, just find the current agreement and show me that it contains regulations for commercial banks that aren't in the operating circulars. Also, you could show me that the Agreement has an exemption for bank endorsements on PMOs. It shouldn't be too hard to find the current Agreement. Tom Scully could probably find it for you. My "research," reflecting my level of interest, has been limited to what I could find through Google. I was not able to find a copy of the Agreement from any year. For someone with a higher level of interest, a FOIA request should turn up everything that is available at minimal expense. The problem is, we cannot assume anything. There was in 1963 an Agreement, a Code of Federal Regulations, a Federal Reserve Regulation J, a variety of operating circulars, and some standard procedure for processing PMOs at the level of the local bank, the Federal Reserve (as agent for the Postal Service) and the Treasury Department. We need to establish what the reality was. The Gospel of Endorsements has been predicated almost entirely on a supposed "Wilmouth statement" that is looking more and more like a fabrication by John Armstrong, the God of Money Order Fakery. I seem to be the only one who finds the apparent fabrication and certainly the lack of explanation by Armstrong to be troubling (a lack of interest which I, in turn, find rather troubling and telling). The 1960 FRB circular stated, "and with respect to matters not coveredby such agreement, the provisions of Regulation J, this circular and our time schedules shall be deemed applicable to all postal money orders." This seems like rather odd language to use if the Agreement were "published in operating circulars" as you suggest. I don't feel a burden to "prove you wrong" because you are simply making an assumption that is, on its face, inconsistent with the FRB circular. On this thread, this forum, and all places where True Believers congregate, there is seldom anything resembling an effort to arrive at the actual truth. Various species of Young Earth Creationists, Radical Jihadists, New Atheists and Armstrong Groupies rabidly defend their turf, shouting down any evidence that challenges their position while being willing to make unlikely inferences and assumptions if this will prop up their position. It's what litigation would be like if we had no ethical rules, rules of evidence, rules of procedure, burdens of proof, presumptions, requirements for qualifying expert witnesses, etc. It would be utter chaos. If the truth actually did emerge by dumb luck, it would be lost in the chaos. To borrow a phrase from no less a philosopher than Mr. T, I pity the poor fool who doesn't understand why threads like this go nowhere. Someone beat me to the punch of pointing out that the Armstrong sycophants have managed to derail the thread with the reliable changing-the-subject ploy. Yawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Sienzant Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I have a idea for you Lance. Given that FRB requirements for PMO clearing hasn't changed much since 1960, maybe the Agreement between the U.S. Postal Service and Federal Reserve Banks hasn't changed much either. If you want to prove me wrong about the Agreement being published in operating circulars, just find the current agreement and show me that it contains regulations for commercial banks that aren't in the operating circulars. Also, you could show me that the Agreement has an exemption for bank endorsements on PMOs. It shouldn't be too hard to find the current Agreement. Tom Scully could probably find it for you. My "research," reflecting my level of interest, has been limited to what I could find through Google. I was not able to find a copy of the Agreement from any year. For someone with a higher level of interest, a FOIA request should turn up everything that is available at minimal expense. The problem is, we cannot assume anything. There was in 1963 an Agreement, a Code of Federal Regulations, a Federal Reserve Regulation J, a variety of operating circulars, and some standard procedure for processing PMOs at the level of the local bank, the Federal Reserve (as agent for the Postal Service) and the Treasury Department. We need to establish what the reality was. The Gospel of Endorsements has been predicated almost entirely on a supposed "Wilmouth statement" that is looking more and more like a fabrication by John Armstrong, the God of Money Order Fakery. I seem to be the only one who finds the apparent fabrication and certainly the lack of explanation by Armstrong to be troubling (a lack of interest which I, in turn, find rather troubling and telling). The 1960 FRB circular stated, "and with respect to matters not coveredby such agreement, the provisions of Regulation J, this circular and our time schedules shall be deemed applicable to all postal money orders." This seems like rather odd language to use if the Agreement were "published in operating circulars" as you suggest. I don't feel a burden to "prove you wrong" because you are simply making an assumption that is, on its face, inconsistent with the FRB circular. On this thread, this forum, and all places where True Believers congregate, there is seldom anything resembling an effort to arrive at the actual truth. Various species of Young Earth Creationists, Radical Jihadists, New Atheists and Armstrong Groupies rabidly defend their turf, shouting down any evidence that challenges their position while being willing to make unlikely inferences and assumptions if this will prop up their position. It's what litigation would be like if we had no ethical rules, rules of evidence, rules of procedure, burdens of proof, presumptions, requirements for qualifying expert witnesses, etc. It would be utter chaos. If the truth actually did emerge by dumb luck, it would be lost in the chaos. To borrow a phrase from no less a philosopher than Mr. T, I pity the poor fool who doesn't understand why threads like this go nowhere. Someone beat me to the punch of pointing out that the Armstrong sycophants have managed to derail the thread with the reliable changing-the-subject ploy. Yawn. Hi Lance, That was me that pointed out the attempt to change the subject. Did you notice the point I made in post 319 (and before that in post 309) that what Sandy Larsen provided says the money order only needs to be endorsed TO THE ORDER OF any bank, not BY the bank? And that the current money order appears to meet that specified criteria, as it is endorsed via that Klein's stamp PAYABLE TO THE ORDER OF THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22439&p=320774 I'm of the persuasion that pretty much seals the deal, unless something new comes up. Hank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) But, Hank, it also says this in that very same paragraph of the regulation...."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."None of which is found on the CE788 Hidell money order.But it's very likely (IMO) that the Hidell M.O. was part of a bulk transfer of postal money orders which was accompanied by a cash letter (deposit ticket), which very likely did have those stamps on it (i.e., the date and the ABA transit numbers).To believe the Hidell M.O. is fraudulent at this stage in this lengthy thread/discussion is silly, especially when we KNOW it was found just exactly where it should have been found in Alexandria/Washington.And we also have information in CD75 coming from a First National Bank Vice President (Wilmouth) verifying that First National DID handle the $21.45 Postal Money Order in question.How many more years will conspiracy theorists completely ignore these important paragraphs found in Commission Document No. 75? .... Edited December 21, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now