+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: FBI's Pants on Fire! (/thread-14366.html)
FBI's Pants on Fire! - Jim Hargrove - 22-12-2015
More proof the fbi lied and lied and lied....
Anyone got an answer for this???
FBI's Pants on Fire! - Jim Hargrove - 22-12-2015
Still waiting... Tom...
FBI's Pants on Fire! - Tom Scully - 22-12-2015
Jim Hargrove Wrote:Hey Tom.
You're always attacking me and DJ and JA... to be honest, I don't even read your posts anymore.... I know they will be attacks... and will have E_N_D_L_E_S_S G_R_A_P_H_I_C_S ... without any substance.
In 30 words or less. please post your complaint about me. No bullshit graphics... PLEASE!!!
Jim,
You object and curse, but I am not the one presenting impeached
claims.
You present an entire website, and this is the way you choose to respond to evidence contradicting a small portion of the many details and points you present? Evidence is evidence. Verifiable fact has no personality. Present your competing evidence. Engage and at least act interested in counter claims.
Tom Scully Wrote:..............
Drew,
Doesn't it come down to whether, despite much recent presentation
of evidence, the suspicions and theories of D. Josephs, J. Hargrove, J. DiEugenio, and J. Armstrong comprise a well formed argument credibly challenging the core assertion by the Secret Service agent who filed this report?:
[URL="http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490&relPageId=120&search=alexandria_and%20jackson"]http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490&relPageId=120&search=alexandria_and%20jackson
[/URL]The SS report linked above is supported by this.:
CE 788 : http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0352a.htm.........
FBI's Pants on Fire! - Drew Phipps - 22-12-2015
Certainly "chain of custody" is one of several legal prerequisites to the admissibility of a piece of evidence in a legal proceeding. The initials on the back of the money order are merely that, documenting the chain of custody. They do not (legally) prove up the authenticity of the document.
For instance, a detective processing a crime scene might "tag and bag" dozens or hundreds of items. His initials would have to go on them, along with other persons who handle/transport the items. However, the mere presence of initials doesn't mean the item is authentic (think of a counterfeiting ring bust). Or that the item wasn't planted at the crime scene by the perpetrator. It simply documents the path of the item thru law enforcement once it is seized.
FBI's Pants on Fire! - Michael Cross - 22-12-2015
Tom Scully Wrote:I don't believe those two examples are the same thing, same issuing body, etc. It may be a leap of faith to assume they have the same markings and rules.
![[Image: File-Locator-Numbers.png]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-M1HcXKG12HM/Vk0DilmQPRI/AAAAAAABIKE/Ai_XQInM0co/s1600/File-Locator-Numbers.png)
![[Image: CE788.jpg]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aDCohXESehY/Txt4Cc6X7aI/AAAAAAAADys/yLNy5kl5WRU/s1600/CE788.jpg)
FBI's Pants on Fire! - Dawn Meredith - 22-12-2015
Jim Hargrove Wrote:Hey Tom.
You're always attacking me and DJ and JA... to be honest, I don't even read your posts anymore.... I know they will be attacks... and will have E_N_D_L_E_S_S G_R_A_P_H_I_C_S ... without any substance.
In 30 words or less. please post your complaint about me. No bullshit graphics... PLEASE!!!
I so agree. I just skip by his endless postings of old news articles and whose grandfather was married to whose aunt...I have long ago come to the conclusion that he is only here to attack Harvey and Lee supporters.
Dawn
FBI's Pants on Fire! - Jim Hargrove - 22-12-2015
Tom Scully Wrote:Jim,
You object and curse, but I am not the one presenting impeached
claims.
You present an entire website, and this is the way you choose to respond to evidence contradicting a small portion of the many details and points you present? Evidence is evidence. Verifiable fact has no personality. Present your competing evidence. Engage and at least act interested in counter claims.
No, Tom, you attributed an assertion to me that was from David Josephs, apparently as a sort of divide and conquer diversion. I even presented a paragraph from the Harvey and Lee homepage--that has been there for years--directly contradicting your attempted misdirection. Please tell us again and again how, of all the people who post here, only you love the truth and have a pure heart!
FBI's Pants on Fire! - Tom Scully - 22-12-2015
Drew Phipps Wrote:Certainly "chain of custody" is one of several legal prerequisites to the admissibility of a piece of evidence in a legal proceeding. The initials on the back of the money order are merely that, documenting the chain of custody. They do not (legally) prove up the authenticity of the document.
For instance, a detective processing a crime scene might "tag and bag" dozens or hundreds of items. His initials would have to go on them, along with other persons who handle/transport the items. However, the mere presence of initials doesn't mean the item is authentic (think of a counterfeiting ring bust). Or that the item wasn't planted at the crime scene by the perpetrator. It simply documents the path of the item thru law enforcement once it is seized.
Quote:..............
Drew,
Doesn't it come down to whether, despite much recent presentation
of evidence, the suspicions and theories of D. Josephs, J. Hargrove, J. DiEugenio, and J. Armstrong comprise a well formed argument credibly challenging the core assertion by the Secret Service agent who filed this report?:
[URL="http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490&relPageId=120&search=alexandria_and%20jackson"]http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490&relPageId=120&search=alex andria_and%20jackson
[/URL]The SS report linked above is supported by this.:
CE 788 : http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0352a.htm .........
Drew,
I do not think you answered my question. The WC produced a report
of an SS agent and the initialed postal money order.
Quote:http://legalupdateonline.com/4th/394
.......
Sources of Information Establishing Probable Cause:
Other Police Officers
Other Police Officers: Suspect information or other criminal activity information received from other peace officers, either verbally, at pre-shift briefings, from department-originated notices, etc., or when communicated via radio through the police dispatcher, is considered reliable and generally establishes probable cause to arrest or searchby itself. (People v. Hill (1974) 12 Cal.3[SUP]rd[/SUP] 731, 761; People v. Ramirez (1997) 59 Cal.App.4[SUP]th[/SUP] 1548.)
This is sometimes referred to as having received information through "official channels," which refers to when it comes from any law enforcement source. (People v. Lara (1967) 67 Cal.2[SUP]nd[/SUP] 365, 371.) Examples:
But: Eventually, law enforcement may be required in court to trace the information back to its source in order to disprove an accusation that the information establishing probable cause was "manufactured in the police station;" i.e., that it wasthe result of speculation or other unreliable source. (People v. Orozco (1981) 114 Cal.App.3[SUP]rd[/SUP] 435.)
- Police radio broadcasts.
- Pre-shift briefings.
- "A.P.B.s" (i.e., an "All Points Bulletin") and similar law enforcement generated memos.
This is sometimes referred to as the "Harvey/Madden rule," based upon authority in People v. Harvey (1958) 156 Cal.App.2[SUP]nd[/SUP] 516, and People v. Madden (1970) 2 Cal.3[SUP]rd[/SUP] 1017, or an "Ojeda motion," based upon Ojeda v. Superior Court (1970) 12 Cal.App.3[SUP]rd[/SUP] 909.)
What is the substance of the challenge to the Secret Service agent's
report on his receipt of the postal money order? I've established that the money order was, as the SS agent's report claimed, found where a paid money order purchased in Dallas on March 12, 1963 would be found, to the exclusion of the challengers' claims that it should have been found at the Kansas City, MO postal money order center, and that the two names reported to have presented that paid money order to the SS agent were "real" and acting in their documented capacities. There is the additional evidence of the file locator number displayed on the upper face of that paid money order. Nothing has been presented proving a requirement of affixing bank stamps to a postal money order to avoid disqualifying its payment. There is no procedure for inspecting for bank endorsement stamps, automatically processed government checks or postal money orders, for approval of payment or possible disqualification owing to missing endorsement stamps, but there were comments like this, at the time, as state laws were updated in response to UCC regulation "changes" related to banking endorsements.:
Quote:(a similar article authored in the same year, 1964, performing a similar comparison of the revised UCC to Nebraska state law.:
pg 2. 1964 - http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2692&context=nlr "....In drafting the Uniform Commercial Code, the most controversial article was related to bank deposits and collections....")
and;
Quote:...To make a collecting bank's duties depend upon an inscription which it cannot take time to read, or to make the right of a payor bank to recover from prior parties depend on whether a machine failed to stamp, may be likened to a requirement that incantations be prop- erly made.40from :
.PDF pg. 15, 1964 pub. date: http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1871&context=mlr
The irony here is that David Josephs went on Len Osanic's internet radio show and stated that Robert H Jackson's home address in Alexandria, Virginia, "does not exist". (Link to 90 sec. long sound clip.: https://app.box.com/s/yuq77v3xdp3rmgc3mkc3fwvvbdb7i635 )
...and has posted here that neither Jackson nor J Harold Marks exist, but Jim Hargrove and Dawn seem to feel very strongly that my posting is the problem. My posts could be reduced to one paragraph each if there was less resistance to new evidence.
FBI's Pants on Fire! - David Josephs - 22-12-2015
Quote:David,
You make it obvious you are in over your head or have a reading comprehension problem.
Mr. Scully - your inability to present your mountains of unrelated and poorly linked crap as corroborative or opposing evidence remains as poor as ever. You claim to be keeper of the truth behind the evidence yet your information always falls short of dealing with the situation being discussed. If Marks and Jackson were real people and the PMO involved was real... then Holmes' story about the PMO Stub in the book found at the Dallas GPO would either easily prove it and support it and be seen for the fabrication it was.
But there is no stub. No book of PMOs with numbers related to THAT PMO. Just the word of one Harry HOLMES - which is easily proven to be a story of fancy to convict Oswald and not grounded in any truth.
It seems you want so bad for the evidence against Ozzie to be real you'll post most anything to confuse the issue. ::thumbsup::
Let's look at some of your contentions...
Since the SS report from DC mentions Jackson by name, he must be real and must have been involved in the recovery of said PMO - cause the SS like the FBI had no special interest in providing evidence focused solely on Oswald - I don't know if you're just plain dim or naive Tom. The SS and USPS are key members of the "Ozzie at all costs" brigade with the FBI gathering and coordinating all this BS evidence as they did in most every area of the case.
It is no surprise you accept FBI/SS WC summary reports as FACT. They are unsigned and generally unseen by those described within the report and are taken as the tablet from the mountain until on elooks at the crap these two agencies offer.
You accept Harry Holmes' explanation as factual as well - the joke remains on you. Did you read his statements in the notes he wrote about the events? Do you have any sense for the depth of the lies involved in what he offers?
Are you claiming that Holmes found the PMO via the Field and Stream mag for $12.78 plus a little extra plus shipping and just got lucky. The papers all said $12.78 based on this bogus story. Yet you believe him.
Whether PMOs were sent to Siberia deosn't change what the SS Chicago field office wrote in their report which conflicts with what the DC SS writes in theirs.
Here are those stupid Postal Inspectors working side by side with the Secret Service to find the PMO in Kansas City... How again can KROZ learn they found the PMO at 8pm CST, 9pm EST when the boys involved in that search have yet to find it and bring it to SA PARKER. Hmmm?
You want to claim that the SS Chicago office report is wrong despite numerous USPS empoyees involved in the search and completely unaware of this change in storage location.
Now sadly I covered up some important info in this document - what the FBI told the USPS/SS after acquiring the records from Kleins -
Why Tom if the FBI et al knew it was a $21.95 PMO would they be claiming the rifle cost $12.78 for weeks. The Field and Stream issue HOLMES finds the $12.78 within becomes THE GUN AD he used until they Kleins story comes together. Seems there is always an FBI FIRST STORY which is found to be impossible, summarily dropped and replaced by something just as transparent.
Now Tom, why would the FBI send the SS/USPS on a wild goose chase if the stub for the PMO was found that morning and/or that they have an Order Blank for $21.45?
How does HOLMES take a $12.78 ad and come up with a $21.45 PMO stub which for some reason is not in evidence, nor is a statement from the person who found it. The memory of HOLMES is amazing as long as it does not involve the names of key participants, witnesses or superiors.
So you see Tom... All your posting of grave locations and family trees does not address the problems you like to ignore - that the evidence is not Authentic. While I appreciate what Drew says - the fact this is not a trial makes the authentication of evidence even MORE important. If it cannot even pass the test here, it would never be admitted as evidence in a case against Oswald. If it's not authentic Tom, then all the accusations related to that piece of evidence are moot.
You have no explanation regarding who "Marks" originally had begin the search after DUGGINS calls him an hour before VERANT so that the SS reporting agent can tell us that
"they" were having trouble bringing the computers up...Why again are they messing with computers at the Center at 8:30pm when our man Holmes was involved in finding the PMO early that morning?
Neither Marks nor Jackson were called to testify or offer a written statement to corroborate the Secret Service's story. We simply are asked to believe them.
Well Tom, I can't do that given the mountain of lies the FBI/SS/USPS/IN&S/CIA offered up as convicting evidence. Their evidence moreso than anything else needs authentication - the process whereby the evidence can be accepted as REAL in a court of law.
Thanks again for your obtuse findings and tangential explanations without actually saying anything. I'd prefer you completely ignore everything I post given you POV on the subject and such a willingness to believe what you are fed.
Peace out Tom... when you finally see how the Evidence IS the Conspiracy maybe you'll finally stop trying to defend the completely fraudulent.
FBI's Pants on Fire! - Tom Scully - 22-12-2015
David,
I have one contention to make. aside from that, I can demonstrate that there are inaccurate, unsubstantiated, and misleading claims and descriptions about the $21.45 money order displayed on the pages that resolve at these two links, and that they are on a website maintained by Jim Hargrove.
Quote:http://harveyandlee.net….Oswald Never Purchased a Mail Order Rifle
The Postal Money Order allegedly used to purchase the rifle that supposedly killed JFK is perhaps the most unexplainable document published by the Warren Commission. A quick look at this money order (see DOCUMENT link below) shows that it was never deposited nor cashed at a bank. It does not have a single bank stamp on the front or reverse side…
http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html
FABRICATING A HOAX
MAIL ORDER RIFLE.
…In other words, this money order could easily have been pulled from a stack of fresh, unsold money orders by a postal official in Dallas, sometime after the assassination, and then given to the FBI….
Note: The text above is presented as prompts to locate the entire
description of the money order, as presented on the two web pages,
and are not intended to highlight specific conflicts with recently presented, related evidence. It is, of course, left to Mr. Hargrove to decide what he wished to present on web pages under his administration. I took issue with him not making any revision for
the purpose of presenting timely and informed details about the money
order to readers of these two web pages. Speaking only for myself,
knowing what I have learned since November 9, 2015, an update
of the present description of money order controversy would have
been a top priority. On my own site, I presented the newly discovered
money order background details, nearly in real time.
You posted that J Harold Marks's 1960 testimony supports that postal money orders were keypunched by the Federal Reserve.
You posted that Marks and Jackson are fictitious names.
My contention is that I have made no false, unsubstantiated or misleading claims. You have many suspicions. I've presented research details that put a number of them to rest. Please recall that I got into this about November 9, in reaction to Jean Davison backing the claim of Brian Castle, a claim you repeated yesterday, that the Federal Reserve keypunched holes in postal money orders.
I posted proof that this was an obsolete claim, as of 5 January, 1963, for all postal money orders sold in the Dallas postal region, on or after that date. From there, by extension I found there was an explanation for the jump in money order serial numbers sold in the Dallas postal region between 5 January, when Oswald purchased serial# 2,202,000,060, and the serial # of the $21.45 sold on 12 March. I also found that it was understandable and reasonable for there to be such confusion on where the paid money order could be found on November, 23, 1963, as there was a transition, beginning with the publicized new process money order announced in spring, 1962, compared to the older money order that the Federal Reserve was still key punching round holes into in 1963. What you maintain
are justifications for your deep suspicions are, upon my own recent thorough examination, routine effects/confusion resulting from a coincidental technological upgrade coordinated by the Post Office and the US Treasurer's ADP accomadation of postal money orders and 59,000 newly distributed print-punch postal money order machines issued in exactly in the period of time under study today.
You have overreacted, owing to awareness of too little detail.
http://jfk.education/node/11
![[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=7871&stc=1]](https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7871&stc=1)