Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

[Micah Mileto]

There's a new thread about this on the Deep Politics Forum, with new references! https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?16192-Would-someone-give-this-info-to-Sandy-Larson-at-the-Ed-Forum-please!

[David Von Pein]

I don't think any of that stuff from Scott Kaiser is new. I believe all of that material was utilized last year in the various Edu. Forum discussions.

Edited December 15, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Micah Mileto]

2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I don't think any of that stuff from Scott Kaiser is new. I think all of that material was utilized last year in the various Edu. Forum discussions.

Ah.

 

BTW, has anybody contacted postal/stamp museums or people with vast collections for photographs of 1960's money orders?

[David Von Pein]

13 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

...has anybody contacted...people with vast collections for photographs of 1960's money orders?

I wonder if any such "collector" exists on this planet?

Has anyone really wanted to collect vast numbers of "photographs of 1960's money orders"?

If so, my next question would be --- What the heck for?

Edited December 15, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Micah Mileto]

Some hardcore stamp collectors may have some processed money orders from various points in history. I'll try calling postal museums tomorrow. I already emailed the Smithsonian postal museum.

[David Von Pein]

But, come to think about it, there are people who collect just about every object known to man. I was surprised when I discovered a few years ago that there were organizations called the Post Mark Collectors Club and the Machine Cancel Society (for "Enthusiasts of postmarks, postal history and post office history").

Related discussion (re: the postmark on Oswald's envelope in CE773):

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html

[Sandy Larsen]

It's highly unlikely that any bank-processed postal money order from years past still exist. Because after being processed the Post Office put them in storage for two years, after which they were destroyed.

The exception might be PMOs that were fraudulently raised, or used in court cases. I don't know what was done with them.

We have seen a couple of 1960s era PMOs that were never cashed. I remember seeing one on e-Bay last winter.

[Micah Mileto]

36 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It's highly unlikely that any bank-processed postal money order from years past still exist. Because after being processed the Post Office put them in storage for two years, after which they were destroyed.

The exception might be PMOs that were fraudulently raised, or used in court cases. I don't know what was done with them.

We have seen a couple of 1960s era PMOs that were never cashed. I remember seeing one on e-Bay last winter.

A totally useless, old piece of paper that also happens to be rare? Stamp collectors take that as a challenge. We could have plenty of 1960's-era money orders to compare to CE788 no time if we ask the right people.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Micah Mileto

[Sandy Larsen]

19 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

A totally useless, old piece of paper that also happens to be rare? Stamp collectors take that as a challenge. We could have plenty of 1960's-era money orders to compare to CE788 no time if we ask the right people.

But Micah, how would collectors have gotten hold of processed PMOs? The government stored them for two years and then destroyed them.

Or are you talking about unprocessed (uncashed) PMOs?

Regardless, any surviving processed PMO wound indeed be rare.

[Micah Mileto]

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

But Micah, how would collectors have gotten hold of processed PMOs? The government stored them for two years and then destroyed them.

Or are you talking about unprocessed (uncashed) PMOs?

Regardless, any surviving processed PMO wound indeed be rare.

This is on ebay.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/US-POSTAL-MONEY-ORDER-SAMOA-1961-BR6030-/171426606217?hash=item27e9d26c89:g:g7wAAOSwxCxT80Ck

This is uncashed?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Yeah, that was never cashed. A cashed PMO would have been 1) endorsed on the back by the payee; 2) stamped by the bank that presented the PMO to a Federal Reserve Bank; and 3) stamped by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Note that the PMO was worth only one cent. It likely served some other purpose than paying somebody a cent. I believe that the guy who bought this PMO is the same we noted last year who would send a self-address stamped envelope with each PMO he sent worldwide, in hopes of getting it back. Maybe he was a member of some club whose goal was to receive PMOs from exotic places all around the world.

[Micah Mileto]

On 11/16/2015 at 8:46 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Brian S.:

The rifle that Oswald owned. The one that Marina repeatedly refers to in her testimony.

Excuse me, but this is simply not the case. And when we had people like Farley, Josephs, Hogan etc on this forum, it would have been called out immediately.

On multiple counts. And any lawyer would have ripped it to smithereens.

In her first Secret Service interview, she said she was shocked when she first saw the alleged rifle in evidence.

Why? Because the rifle she said she saw Oswald with did not have a scope. (Reclaiming Parkland, by James DiEugenio, p. 62)

Now, if we watch how Marina's story changed in this regard, things get very interesting. Because her story changes just as her story did about the Imperial Reflex Camera. Because by the time she was dressed up and ready to go for the WC, that rifle that shocked her at first now became "the fateful rifle of Lee Harvey Oswald."

Geez, you think that deal she signed with that phony film company for 135,000 bucks (about 900 K today) had anything to do with that switcheroo?

Need I add, the rifle that the FBI says Oswald ordered is not the rifle in evidence.

Let us never lose sight of that fact. Because it is a fact.

•  

Jim,

 

What "first Secret Service interview" do you mean? In Reclaiming Parkland, you cite :

Report of Agent Charles Kunkel dated December 3, 1963, “Activities of the Oswald family from 11/24-30/ 63."

but upon closer inspection there is no mention of rifles or scopes in that report.

[James DiEugenio]

Its in that long Secret Service report that Harold Weisberg uses in Whitewash 2.

I don't have it anymore since I gave all my files to Bill Davy for a rewrite of his book.

 

But Harold quotes that part about the no scope aspect in Whitewash 2 on page 16.

[Micah Mileto]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Its in that long Secret Service report that Harold Weisberg uses in Whitewash 2.

I don't have it anymore since I gave all my files to Bill Davy for a rewrite of his book.

 

But Harold quotes that part about the no scope aspect in Whitewash 2 on page 16.

Thanks for pointing in the right direction. Here's the excerpt on Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=s8ktAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT28&lpg=PT28&dq="weisberg"+"whitewash"+"scope"&source=bl&ots=yG-ykJyZ-h&sig=JJJbGwf-0d2nkD2RmaXoMZSecBc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin7Yn-1u3SAhXC1CYKHVMfDV0Q6AEIKzAD#v=onepage&q="weisberg" "whitewash" "scope"&f=false

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks for posting that Micah.  That opening chapter from Harold's book is really interesting and helped me a lot for Reclaiming Parkland.

 

A later chapter in Whitewash 2 was the chapter called "Baker's Dozen",  there Harold quotes from policeman Baker's first day affidavit which clashes head on with the WR's second floor lunchroom story.  He was the only one of the first generation critics who ever mentioned this. Which is how I got onto it for Reclaiming Parkland

Edited March 24, 2017 by James DiEugenio