Jump to content
The Education Forum

Hank Sienzant

Members
  • Content Count

    60
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Hank Sienzant

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    USA
  • Interests
    JFK Assassination, Reading in general

Recent Profile Visitors

1,458 profile views
  1. 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change without notice and the right is reserved to return without presentment any items drawn on banks which may have withdrawn or may have been removed from the list or may have been reported elosed.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.).... Contrary to your assertion, it doesn't need the specific words "Pay to the order of any bank...", but rather, it needs to be stamped "Pay to the order of [any bank name here]" and that's made clear because the language isn't in quotes in your section you quoted. It also says some "similar endorsement" will work just as well. So we're done here. It was so stamped - just as you admit the language requires. By Kleins. Remember? PAY TO THE ORDER OF THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO 50 91144 KLEINS SPORTING GOODS, INC. We covered all this ground previously. Like here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22439&p=320642 But thanks again for that admission it just needs to be stamped "Pay to the order of any bank". And certainly, FIRST NATIONAL OF CHICAGO qualified as any bank, didn't it? Hank
  2. 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. In addition to the endorsement, paragraph #13 states that the date and bank's ABA number also be stamped. ​And we covered that too. The language you cited above that states if any of that is missing, the mere act of submitting it for payment means it's the equivalent of submission with all the necessary info... "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..." Quite simply, you haven't proven what you claimed to have established. As I asked before, what's the point of putting in a bunch of improvements to allow the money orders to be processed by machine if you're still going to insist on a hand stamp for every one? And additionally, if a hand-stamp isn't there or is worded improperly or is a HANDWRITTEN endorsement, is a 1963 machine going to be able to determine that which is proper and which is not, and kick it out as invalid? Or will it read the punch-holes and just process the money order and mark it as paid in the system? The whole point of the changes to the IBM-punch card money order was to speed up processing by making it possible for machines to do the processing, and replace the previous system of everything being done by humans. Quite frankly, what you're insisting on doesn't appear to make much sense. In addition, your cited case law example doesn't appear to apply here, "Where a collecting bank indorses "Pay to the order of any Bank, Banker or Trust Co., prior endorsements guaranteed," as there is no such collecting bank endorsement on the money order in question (the collecting bank would be the FRB, wouldn't it?), and the question before the court concerned a check, not a money order. Those are fundamentally different financial instruments, as we've previously discussed. It also concerns Georgia case law, not Texas nor federal law, and you have not shown that Georgia law extends to Texas or the federal government, and likewise extends from checks to money orders. And the language previously cited, that the act of submission itself, protects the FRB from any payments in error, and makes the submitting bank liable, not the FRB. So it doesn't appear your cited example establishes anything about the money order in question. Hank
  3. This transaction goes to the heart of the assassination and involves a paper trail that is flawed. How is the paper trail flawed? You're not going to argue it was postmarked in the wrong zone -- based on the assumption that the 12 specified a zone 12 in Dallas -- and that Oswald didn't have time to buy the money order -- based on the assumption that people never leave work after punching in and stealing some company time to do personal shopping or anything -- right? Your entire argument about the paper trail is flawed because it's based on assumptions and ignores the real world counter-examples. But I understand why you have to cite assumptions. You have no real evidence. Hank ​
  4. 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 THE 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 PS: All this was covered in the past. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22439&p=320774
  5. 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. At least you're back on topic.
  6. You keep talking about the rifle in a thread devoted to the money order. Seems like you're desperate to change the subject. Note: I did not mention Armstrong either. Hank
  7. I'll remind you that there's plenty of evidence your 'Therefore' has to overcome. Start a thread on the rifle, and post the link here. I'll be happy to discuss. And I'll remind you that we're talking specifically about any supposed issues with the money order in this thread. Any supposed issues with the rifle deserves its own thread, and you're simply attempting to change the subject from the money order to the rifle. We can all see that. And I'll point out that your 'Maybe" is simply speculation. And there's plenty of evidence to support that he did send the payment. Hank
  8. You keep talking about the rifle when the subject of this thread is the money order. Why is that, Jim?
  9. All these steps are part of one transaction. ​Nobody is disputing that. In fact, it's good of you to finally admit it. You've been arguing all along these are not all part of one transaction, haven't you? So to say for example, that the processing of my charge card is not related to signing the receipt--I mean who the heck buys that baloney? You are the one passing out red herrings. ​That's the LOGICAL FALLACY of a straw man argument. I didn't say they were unrelated... I said it was a change of subject to start talking about the bullet or the rifle when the subject of this discussion is the money order, and only the money order. In one sense, if you step far enough back, everything is related, so you can change the subject from Oswald's supposed fluency in Russian to the paper bag found on the sixth floor, and argue that those are related. But when we're discussing the paper bag, to switch to talking about Oswald's fluency in Russian is a change of subject. And so is switching to talk about the rifle when the subject of the thread is the money order. And here's the subject of the thread, Jim: Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements! http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html Description of Straw Man The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern: 1.Person A has position X. 2.Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). 3.Person B attacks position Y. 4.Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. You have been hanging out at McAdam's' place too long. What happens is you end up like him. ​And you're still resorting to the LOGICAL FALLACY of poisoning the well. He still can't figure rout what he did wrong with Cheryl Abbate. And there's the LOGICAL FALLACY of the red herring once more. Can't discuss the money order? Change the subject! Start discussing the rifle, or CE399, or Cheryl Abbate. Hank
  10. Still changing the subject from the money order and now to the rifle bullet. That's a LOGICAL FALLACY known as a red herring. Already pointed it out. I don't know why you persist. Here, let's go into a bit more detail. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html 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. ​And of course, your argument that "Unless of course you post at McAdams' site, like Hank. Then you leave the logic outside the door" is simply the LOGICAL FALLACY of ad hominem. That's where you attack the messenger, instead of the message. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html Description of Ad Hominem Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person." An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form: 1.Person A makes claim X. 2.Person B makes an attack on person A. 3.Therefore A's claim is false. The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). My message was on the topic of the money order and whether it appears valid from the contents of the money order itself. I see you didn't bother to respond on that subject whatsoever. Instead, you bring up some supposed other 'anomalies' in an attempt to change the subject. Happy Holidays to you and yours, Hank PS: I haven't posted at McAdams site for about a year. Besides, that's just another LOGICAL FALLACY known as "poisoning the well". You point that out (that I've posted at McAdams site) as if it's a negative, and that's the very definition of poisoning the well, Jim. I've posted at a lot of sites, Jim - going back to CompuServe, Prodigy, and the old AOL bulletin boards. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html Description of Poisoning the Well This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form: 1.Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented. 2.Therefore any claims person A makes will be false. This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. ​Good luck getting anyone to fall for this kind of argument, Jim.
  11. Ray is the first guy who intimated something was wrong with the transaction: How could the money order do all of that in 24 hours. That is go from Dallas to Chicago to the bank and be deposited all in a day. ​Sorry, you need to provide evidence, not just intimation, that there's anything wrong with the transaction. McLeer has some interesting exhibits on his site showing there was more than one rifle in evidence. Sorry, changing the subject from the money order to the rifle won't work. We understand that's a logical fallacy, and we understand why you're trying this. Gil has done some really fantastic work on tracing the delivery all the way from Italy to Chicago. That work is really kind of revolutionary showing that the rifle in evidence could not have been the one ordered. Sorry, changing the subject from the money order to the rifle won't work. We understand that's a logical fallacy, and we understand why you're trying this. And David just did a two part article at CTKA, which also questions the provenance of the rifle in the BYP, among several other points. You understand the subject matter under debate is the money order? Why are you trying to derail the argument to the rifle at this time? For one reason only, you understand the money order is a lost cause. So now you're trying to do what all conspiracy theorists do, deflect the argument to other points. If you want to discuss the rifle, start a new thread, or contribute to one of the several dozens or hundreds on the rifle you can find on this forum. So to say that this is all Armstrong about the rifle, that is simply not the case. We know. It's about the money order. You're the only one making it about the rifle. Its a form of intellectual dishonesty. We agree! We just disagree on whose intellectual dishonesty. And I think its done for personal reasons and also to limit the scope of the debate. Arguing every point at once isn't very feasible. So yeah, the debate has to be limited if it's going to go anywhere. Right now, it's limited to the question of the money order, and whether there's anything wrong with it. That has not be demonstrated, despite Sandy's best efforts. You want to change the subject from the money order to the rifle because you can see Sandy isn't getting where he'd like to go. We understand, Jim. ​Hank
  12. You're trying to salvage the money order argument by changing the subject to other things you question. Sorry, that's illegitimate argument... it's a logical fallacy known as a red herring to bring up the rifle at this time when the subject is, in fact, the money order. Hank
  13. Hank, Endorsements have more than one purpose. One is the guaranty that you point out is considered to be in place regardless of whether or not an express guaranty is included in the endorsement. Another purpose is to indicate the ABA and address of the sending bank. It is apparently for non-guaranty purposes that the bank endorsement is required. BTW, keep in mind that whatever you interpret from that paragraph in the FRB operating circular, it will be applicable not only to postal money orders but to checks as well. Don't you remember way back when, when we were all young, that virtually every check had bank endorsements stamped on them? According to the operating circular cited, the same should have been true of PMOs as well. (Though, beginning with the PMOs of 1963, an FRB stamp appeared on the front side of the PMO in the form of a file locator number. This may well have been the only FRB stamp to appear on those PMOs. We don't know for certain.) Are you saying checks don't require bank endorsements any more, Sandy? If that's true, perhaps you might want to consider why they don't. It looks like we might finally be beginning to head in that direction, now that people can deposit checks by sending a photo of it over the Internet. Think about it... how does a bank stamp a photograph? But we may NOT be heading in that direction. I say that because I saw some of my checks that appeared to have been sent from a local bank to a national one via photo, and they actually had bank endorsements photographically applied to their backs. I could tell that the stamping was done photographically because the background of the "photo-stamp" covered up text that is printed on the back side of the checks. In fact, as I understand it, you don't even have to stand in line and deposit a check anymore. You can just submit a photo of your check to the bank, and that will work as well. Imagine that. Now, in the early 1960's, what changed in regards to postal money orders, and why? The US government was (slightly) ahead of the technological curve. They chose hole-punching as a way of making computer automation possible. This began around 1958. Meanwhile, around the same time, the ABA introduced the magnetic ink standard that banks still use today. (Maybe you've noticed the futuristic-looking numbers printed at the bottom of checks. They are printed with magnetic ink that can be read by machines.) I think it was in the 1970s that the US government switched PMOs over to the magnetic ink standard. Wasn't the whole point of the changes to be able to bulk-process money orders, rather than manually handle each one, to speed up transaction times? Wasn't it to get people out of the loop and let the computers do it? Hence the IBM punch-card format, so that the information on the money order was machine-readable? What's the point of putting in all these changes to make them machine-readable and speed up processing time .... I don't know. But bank endorsement is still being done, even on photographically sent items. if you're still going to process them manually, and hand-stamp them every step of the way? They aren't processed and stamped manually. It is done by machine. Hank And that takes us back to the number at the top of the postal money order in question, doesn't it? Why is anything else necessary to establish this went to the FRB exactly as it should have? We have a hand-stamp that was applied manually to start the process. We have the machine applied number that denotes the money order made it through the FRB system okay. Analogy hunting is not the name of the game. That worked 50 years ago for the Mark Lanes, Harold Weisbergs, and Sylvia Meaghers of the world to sell books. But it's not sufficient to establish a conspiracy. In fact, it's a logical fallacy to assert that these kinds of supposed anomalies establish anything, let alone a conspiracy. http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies Anyone asserting that the absence of bank stamps; or that the doorman image in the Altgens photo; or the price of the rifle being wrong in the earliest reports; or any of about one hundred thousand other supposed anomalies; is a smoking gun that establishes a conspiracy is simply wrong, and invoking a logical fallacy to boot: Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable Because we do not currently have an adequate explanation for a phenomenon does not mean that it is forever unexplainable, or that it therefore defies the laws of nature or requires a paranormal explanation. An example of this is the “God of the Gaps” strategy of creationists that whatever we cannot currently explain is unexplainable and was therefore an act of god. ​ Hank
  14. The paragraph I am looking at says all that's necessary is an endorsement TO the bank. And we have that in the Kleins stamp. It goes on to say that "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." In other words, the FRB will accept money orders without any additional endorsements, and it's understood that the very act of submitting the money order for payment is the guarantee that the prior endorsements are valid on the part of the submitting bank (in this case, The First National Bank of Chicago. 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. ​You are correct that the money order doesn't have any additional endorsements. But per the language above, I'm not seeing where it needs any, as the very act of submitting the money order for payment is the guaranty that the sending bank (in this case, First National of Chicago) guarantees the item is valid. Could the ABA number be the number specified on the Klein's stamp ("50 91144") right under the bank name? It appears the FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO no longer exists. http://www.nndb.com/company/096/000124721/ Hank ​ Hank, Endorsements have more than one purpose. One is the guaranty that you point out is considered to be in place regardless of whether or not an express guaranty is included in the endorsement. Another purpose is to indicate the ABA and address of the sending bank. It is apparently for non-guaranty purposes that the bank endorsement is required. BTW, keep in mind that whatever you interpret from that paragraph in the FRB operating circular, it will be applicable not only to postal money orders but to checks as well. Don't you remember way back when, when we were all young, that virtually every check had bank endorsements stamped on them? According to the operating circular cited, the same should have been true of PMOs as well. (Though, beginning with the PMOs of 1963, an FRB stamp appeared on the front side of the PMO in the form of a file locator number. This may well have been the only FRB stamp to appear on those PMOs. We don't know for certain.) Are you saying checks don't require bank endorsements any more, Sandy? If that's true, perhaps you might want to consider why they don't. In fact, as I understand it, you don't even have to stand in line and deposit a check anymore. You can just submit a photo of your check to the bank, and that will work as well. Imagine that. Now, in the early 1960's, what changed in regards to postal money orders, and why? Wasn't the whole point of the changes to be able to bulk-process money orders, rather than manually handle each one, to speed up transaction times? Wasn't it to get people out of the loop and let the computers do it? Hence the IBM punch-card format, so that the information on the money order was machine-readable? What's the point of putting in all these changes to make them machine-readable and speed up processing time if you're still going to process them manually, and hand-stamp them every step of the way? Hank
  15. 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 It is incorrect to state that the bleed-thru was due to the postal money order being printed on paper thinner than the original card stock that PMOs at the time were printed on. The bleed-thru was instead caused by a chemical bath that was used for detecting fingerprints. That was testified to by a witness before the WC. I forget the man's name. Here is video that shows the process: http://science.wonderhowto.com/how-to/reveal-latent-fingerprints-paper-other-surfaces-302464/ Ok, that's what I was going for. Hank
×
×
  • Create New...