Klein's $ 21.45 deposit of 3/13/63 was NOT "Hidell" money order

[Gil Jesus]

The evidence says that this money order never went through the system. In fact, if you couple that with the fact that no one could ever find it in the contemporaneous deposit record, well to me its pretty obvious as to why not.

Please show us the graphic evidence that proves the money order was missing stamps, which you say proves it did not go through the system.

The proof that bank stamps were used on postal money orders is right on the back of the money order itself:

"More than one endorsement is prohibited by law. BANK STAMPS are not regarded as endorsements."

http://i56.tinypic.com/20aqrl2.jpg

In 1963, postal money orders were stamped by banks.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Gil Jesus

[Craig Lamson]

The evidence says that this money order never went through the system. In fact, if you couple that with the fact that no one could ever find it in the contemporaneous deposit record, well to me its pretty obvious as to why not.

Please show us the graphic evidence that proves the money order was missing stamps, which you say proves it did not go through the system.

I find it hard to believe that a man your age doesn't know how money orders are handled.

Do you have the graphic PROOF that you are correct or not?

[Craig Lamson]

The evidence says that this money order never went through the system. In fact, if you couple that with the fact that no one could ever find it in the contemporaneous deposit record, well to me its pretty obvious as to why not.

Please show us the graphic evidence that proves the money order was missing stamps, which you say proves it did not go through the system.

The proof that bank stamps were used on postal money orders is right on the back of the money order itself:

"More than one endorsement is prohibited by law. BANK STAMPS are not regarded as endorsements."

http://i56.tinypic.com/20aqrl2.jpg

In 1963, postal money orders were stamped by banks.

So that constitutes PROOF to you? Ok, tells me ALL I need to know about Gil Jesus.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[David Josephs]

I had asked a question that I would love answered...

Where was this MO found by RHJ/JHM/JEP on 11/23? Where is it supposed to go after payment to 1st National Chicago?

thanks

[David Josephs]

No it was found in Alexandria, VIrginia.

Which is kind of odd, since most of the other Oswald money orders were found in Kansas CIty.

Jim - Can you go into that a bit more... why/where in Alexandria VA? (which is only 15 miles from Langley) and how does that relate back

to the SOP for 1st Nat'l Chicago ??

additionally, I did a bit more work on those 2 stamps and it appears to me they are not the same... look at the curve of the letters and spacing as well as the arc of the outer circle which also does not match... up in the corner I see that the "D" on the left is bigger than the "D" on the right, the extra stamp.

Mean anything?

[Gil Jesus]

The proof that bank stamps were used on postal money orders is right on the back of the money order itself:

"More than one endorsement is prohibited by law. BANK STAMPS are not regarded as endorsements."

http://i56.tinypic.com/20aqrl2.jpg

In 1963, postal money orders were stamped by banks.

So that constitutes PROOF to you? Ok, tells me ALL I need to know about Gil Jesus.

Thank You and yes it does. Your snide little attempt at insulting me notwithstanding, I have provided evidence that banks stamped postal money orders in 1963 and that this money order contained no bank stamp. You, for your part, have continually denied the evidence placed before you and no matter how much I prove to you that "the King has no clothes," all we can expect from you is, apparently, more of the same nonsense that the evidence is not sufficient.

I've seen your tactic before.

I don't believe that it's possible to convince someone of something when they are in denial. So I'm not trying to convince you, I'm trying to convince the reader.

Inasmuch as I have provided this evidence, which I believe would cause a REASONABLE and PRUDENT person ( as the law describes it ) to have doubt that this money order is legitimate, you've provided NO EVIDENCE to support your opposing view.

If you have evidence that postal money orders passed through the Federal Reserve System WITHOUT bank stamps, please post it.

Otherwise, as far as I am concerned, the issue is closed and let the reader determine for himself or herself if my evidence is convincing enough when compared to your offering of no evidence.

PS: I certainly hope that this thread will reveal to a lot of people all they need to know, not just about Gil Jesus, but other posters as well.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Gil Jesus

[Gil Jesus]

ANd BTW Gil, was not one of those 21.45 deposits, did it not have a bank deposit slip for February?

Which meant it could not have been the one used for this particular order, which had to be ordered in March.

Absolutely correct. Waldman 10 shows that the $13,000 deposit had a deposit slip of 2/15/63. If you look at that exhibit, you'll see that the date at the bottom of the bank statement is written in by hand as "3-13"63". Nowhere on that document is there a printed date. IOW, that date could have been written in at any time.

http://i54.tinypic.com/foj4gj.jpg

Interestingly, "2/15/63" is the date that Lifschultz was supposed to deliver the rifles to Klein's.

http://i52.tinypic.com/2w7o7if.jpg

Before the naysayers respond that the deposit slip could have been in an honest mistake, I would like to point out that BOTH the month AND the day are wrong ( if you buy the deposit being made on 3/13/63 ). I could see an error on the month at the beginning of the month, but an error on the MONTH AND DAY in the MIDDLE of a month ?

IMO, it's pretty hard to believe it's an honest mistake.

From the evidence I've seen, the FBI apparently used a 2/15/63 deposit of an American Express Money Order and passed it off as a 3/13/63 deposit of a postal money order.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Gil Jesus

[Craig Lamson]

The proof that bank stamps were used on postal money orders is right on the back of the money order itself:

"More than one endorsement is prohibited by law. BANK STAMPS are not regarded as endorsements."

http://i56.tinypic.com/20aqrl2.jpg

In 1963, postal money orders were stamped by banks.

So that constitutes PROOF to you? Ok, tells me ALL I need to know about Gil Jesus.

Thank You and yes it does. Your snide little attempt at insulting me notwithstanding, I have provided evidence that banks stamped postal money orders in 1963 and that this money order contained no bank stamp. You, for your part, have continually denied the evidence placed before you and no matter how much I prove to you that "the King has no clothes," all we can expect from you is, apparently, more of the same nonsense that the evidence is not sufficient.

Inasmuch as I have provided this evidence, which I believe would cause a REASONABLE and PRUDENT person ( as the law describes it ) to have doubt that this money order is legitimate, you've provided NO EVIDENCE to support your opposing view.

If you have evidence that postal money orders passed through the Federal Reserve System WITHOUT bank stamps, please post it.

Otherwise, as far as I am concerned, the issue is closed.

PS: I centainly hope that this thread will reveal to a lot of people all they need to know, not just about Gil Jesus, but other posters as well.

Well we can now also see that Gil Jesus can't even read.

I don't HAVE an opposing view. I ( amoung others) have simply asked you for graphic evidence that what you CLAIM is true actually is true. It's pretty simple. You make a claim, YOU prove solid proof to back up said claim.

That you consider your handwaving to be solid proof is enlighntening to be sure.

It's also quite obvoisu that you don't HAVE graphic proof. Thats ok. Just say so.

I don't know if you are correct or not. Your proofs are lacking.

Gil sez"

"As far as I'm concerned the issue is closed."

Now THAT speaks volumes.....

[David Von Pein]

OSWALD'S writing is on the money order. Therefore, OSWALD ordered the rifle from Klein's via the $21.45 money order (not to mention the Klein's order form) that HE HIMSELF filled out.

Believing anything else is pure speculation. (And hogwash.)

Case closed.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com

Edited March 5, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Gil Jesus]

OSWALD'S writing is on the money order. Therefore, OSWALD ordered the rifle from Klein's via the $21.45 money order (not to mention the Klein's order form) that HE HIMSELF filled out.

Believing anything else is pure speculation. (And hogwash.)

Case closed.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com

Show us the stamps on the money order from the banks that handled it.

[David Von Pein]

Ha HA Ha HA HA HA

I love this. Pure McAdams BS. And he [McAdams] pulled it in the debate with Rossley and with me.

I proved that this was one of the easiest types of evidence to forge [handwriting evidence] and then to pass off as genuine.

Now, look at the cheap trick DVP is trying to pass off here. We are to believe that Oswald signed a money order that:

1. He mailed from a mail box instead of the post office where he bought it minutes before. Thereby walking miles out of his way while he was supposed to be at work, and it was not lunch time.

2. That this money order went over 700 miles, and was then opened, tallied, and sorted at Klein's and then deposited at the bank, all in-- GET THIS --24 hours!

This is before the age of computer scanning folks. The mail and the money orders were sorted by hand, Davey Boy.

3. But yet, magically, the bank did not stamp this money order for deposit, and then failed to pass it through the system. (Maybe that is why it did not end up where Wilmouth said it should have been?) And Klein's could never find the actual deposit. So the FBI then lied about it. Funny Davey. This did not happen with Oswald's other money orders did it. Why?

Because Oswald never ordered or picked up that particular rifle, Davey.

Once more, we're treated to James DiEugenio's eager willingness to call a whole bunch of people "LIARS".

Because if that money order isn't legit, and if it really wasn't filled out by Lee Oswald, then a lot of people are either evil rotten LIARS (or they were really, really stupid/dumb/gullible/idiots).....from the people at Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, to the FBI, to the WC, to the HSCA.

And please think about DiEugenio's and Gil Jesus' silliness from another point-of-view:

IF the money order is a fake/fraud....and IF people like DiEugenio are 100% correct about Oswald not likely mailing it at a particular location on March 12, 1963....and IF Jimbo is right about the money order and rifle order form not being able to get from Dallas to Chicago in 24 hours....then those goofball idiots who wanted to make it LOOK like Oswald DID do all those things and wanted to make it LOOK like the money order got to Chicago in one day's time would certainly have to be considered BRAINLESS MORONS....now wouldn't they, Jimbo?

IOW---If all of this stuff is fake, why on Earth wouldn't the plotters have spread out the amount of time it took from the mailing date to the processing date? After all, if it's all FAKE stuff anyway, then why in hell would they want to make people like DiEugenio even MORE suspicious by making the money order arrive in an impossibly short interval of time? It's ridiculous.

So, were the plotters just incredibly stupid, Jim? Or could there (just POSSIBLY) be an alternate explanation--like, say, the stuff is the REAL McCOY, and you are just searching desperately for ANYTHING you can get your hands on to take that rifle out of the hands of Lee Harvey Oswald?

You see, the kind of "WHY DID THE GOOFY PLOTTERS WHO SUPPOSEDLY FRAMED OSWALD DO THINGS THIS WAY?" questions that I just posed above are the kind of logical questions that conspiracy theorists like Gil Jesus and James DiEugenio never ever ask themselves. Never!

Another excellent example of this same kind of logical inquiry is:

Why in the world would the "real killers" of JFK want to leave behind physical evidence of the conspiracy in the Book Depository after shooting the President?

I.E.,

Why would the conspirators (who were trying to frame Oswald) leave behind a MAUSER gun in the TSBD, instead of leaving behind the gun that was needed to frame their patsy with--Oswald's own Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?

And Jim DiEugenio went one step deeper into la-la fantasy-land when he stated during his Black Op Radio appearance on March 3, 2011, that he believes that Oswald's Carcano WAS NOT FIRED AT ALL on November 22, 1963.*

* = That laughable statement was uttered by DiEugenio despite the fact that ALL of the traceable ballistics evidence in the JFK case leads straight back to Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano, including all three bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest, the two largest fragments recovered from the front of the President's limousine [CE567 and CE569], and CE399, which is a bullet, whether Jim D. likes it or not, that was deemed by both the Warren Commission and the HSCA to be THE EXACT BULLET that struck both President Kennedy and Governor Connally in Dealey Plaza.

So, logically, the conspiracy theorists who really do think that a "Mauser" was found on the sixth floor of the Depository instead of Oswald's Carcano (even though the Tom Alyea film clearly shows a CARCANO being examined by Lt. Carl Day right after it was pulled from the box stacks on the sixth floor), should be asking themselves the very simple and logical question -- Why leave behind evidence that can only expose the conspiracy?

And, of course, the biggest "Why Did The Retarded Plotters Do It Like This?" question of all that is never (EVER!) asked by any of the conspiracy theorists of Planet Earth is the one I've been trying to get some CTer to answer in a reasonable and believable fashion for many years now (and David Lifton's recent "trajectory reversal" explanation is just plain silly from every point-of-view):

If the plotters had a strong desire to frame Lee Oswald as the SOLE ASSASSIN of President John F. Kennedy, then why would those same plotters/conspirators have even WANTED to shoot JFK from the FRONT?

Those reasonable questions should make the conspiracists in the "Anybody But Oswald" camp squirm in their chairs for a little while.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

Edited March 6, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Greg Parker]

Dave,

going into faux paroxysms claiming all that has been posted is impossible because it means everyone involved must be stupid is merely your means of avoiding dealing with substantive issues. You rely on this "debating technique" every time you have nothing else to support your position. It is no way to win a debate.

You actually need to trouble yourself with the issues raised. If you can't, you need to own up to that. If I'm wrong in this particular instance, and you can argue on the evidence, then please, for the love of God, do so.

As it stands, I think the case has pretty much been made that there are manifest problems with the evidence. You acting like a spoiled brat trying to prove there is no problem with the evidence by calling other posters names and ridiculing your own fallacious assumptions of what faked evidence logically leads to, as your stock response, is getting pretty wearisome.

Ha HA Ha HA HA HA

I love this. Pure McAdams BS. And he [McAdams] pulled it in the debate with Rossley and with me.

I proved that this was one of the easiest types of evidence to forge [handwriting evidence] and then to pass off as genuine.

Now, look at the cheap trick DVP is trying to pass off here. We are to believe that Oswald signed a money order that:

1. He mailed from a mail box instead of the post office where he bought it minutes before. Thereby walking miles out of his way while he was supposed to be at work, and it was not lunch time.

2. That this money order went over 700 miles, and was then opened, tallied, and sorted at Klein's and then deposited at the bank, all in-- GET THIS --24 hours!

This is before the age of computer scanning folks. The mail and the money orders were sorted by hand, Davey Boy.

3. But yet, magically, the bank did not stamp this money order for deposit, and then failed to pass it through the system. (Maybe that is why it did not end up where Wilmouth said it should have been?) And Klein's could never find the actual deposit. So the FBI then lied about it. Funny Davey. This did not happen with Oswald's other money orders did it. Why?

Because Oswald never ordered or picked up that particular rifle, Davey.

Once more, we're treated to James DiEugenio's eager willingness to call a whole bunch of people "LIARS".

Because if that money order isn't legit, and if it really wasn't filled out by Lee Oswald, then a lot of people are either evil rotten LIARS (or they were really, really stupid/dumb/gullible/idiots).....from the people at Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, to the FBI, to the WC, to the HSCA.

And please think about DiEugenio's and Gil Jesus' silliness from another point-of-view:

IF the money order is a fake/fraud....and IF people like DiEugenio are 100% correct about Oswald not likely mailing it at a particular location on March 12, 1963....and IF Jimbo is right about the money order and rifle order form not being able to get from Dallas to Chicago in 24 hours....then those goofball idiots who wanted to make it LOOK like Oswald DID do all those things and wanted to make it LOOK like the money order got to Chicago in one day's time would certainly have to be considered BRAINLESS MORONS....now wouldn't they, Jimbo?

IOW---If all of this stuff is fake, why on Earth wouldn't the plotters have spread out the amount of time it took from the mailing date to the processing date? After all, if it's all FAKE stuff anyway, then why in hell would they want to make people like DiEugenio even MORE suspicious by making the money order arrive in an impossibly short interval of time? It's ridiculous.

So, were the plotters just incredibly stupid, Jim? Or could there (just POSSIBLY) be an alternate explanation--like, say, the stuff is the REAL McCOY, and you are just searching desperately for ANYTHING you can get your hands on to take that rifle out of the hands of Lee Harvey Oswald?

You see, the kind of "WHY DID THE GOOFY PLOTTERS WHO SUPPOSEDLY FRAMED OSWALD DO THINGS THIS WAY?" questions that I just posed above are the kind of logical questions that conspiracy theorists like Gil Jesus and James DiEugenio never ever ask themselves. Never!

Another excellent example of this same kind of logical inquiry is:

Why in the world would the "real killers" of JFK want to leave behind physical evidence of the conspiracy in the Book Depository after shooting the President?

I.E.,

Why would the conspirators (who were trying to frame Oswald) leave behind a MAUSER gun in the TSBD, instead of leaving behind the gun that was needed to frame their patsy with--Oswald's own Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?

And Jim DiEugenio went one step deeper into la-la fantasy-land when he stated during his Black Op Radio appearance on March 3, 2011, that he believes that Oswald's Carcano WAS NOT FIRED AT ALL on November 22, 1963.*

* = That laughable statement was uttered by DiEugenio despite the fact that ALL of the traceable ballistics evidence in the JFK case leads straight back to Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano, including all three bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest, the two largest fragments recovered from the front of the President's limousine [CE567 and CE569], and CE399, which is a bullet, whether Jim D. likes it or not, that was deemed by both the Warren Commission and the HSCA to be THE EXACT BULLET that struck both President Kennedy and Governor Connally in Dealey Plaza.

So, logically, the conspiracy theorists who really do think that a "Mauser" was found on the sixth floor of the Depository instead of Oswald's Carcano (even though the Tom Alyea film clearly shows a CARCANO being examined by Lt. Carl Day right after it was pulled from the box stacks on the sixth floor), should be asking themselves the very simple and logical question -- Why leave behind evidence that can only expose the conspiracy?

And, of course, the biggest "Why Did The Retarded Plotters Do It Like This?" question of all that is never (EVER!) asked by any of the conspiracy theorists of Planet Earth is the one I've been trying to get some CTer to answer in a reasonable and believable fashion for many years now (and David Lifton's recent "trajectory reversal" explanation is just plain silly from every point-of-view):

If the plotters had a strong desire to frame Lee Oswald as the SOLE ASSASSIN of President John F. Kennedy, then why would those same plotters/conspirators have even WANTED to shoot JFK from the FRONT?

Those reasonable questions should make the conspiracists in the "Anybody But Oswald" camp squirm in their chairs for a little while.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

[David Von Pein]

Asking questions about the logic of what CTers think the so-called "plotters/conspirators" did to frame Lee Oswald is wearisome, Greg?

Haven't you EVER asked yourself the logical "WHY DID THEY DO THINGS LIKE THIS?" questions I posed above, Greg Parker?

If not--why not?

Edited March 6, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Guest Tom Scully]

....Once more, we're treated to James DiEugenio's eager willingness to call a whole bunch of people "LIARS".

Because if that money order isn't legit, and if it really wasn't filled out by Lee Oswald, then a lot of people are either evil rotten LIARS (or they were really, really stupid/dumb/gullible/idiots).....from the people at Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, to the FBI, to the WC, to the HSCA.

....

OHhhhhh!!! The Humanity !!! Horror of horrors!!! Jim DiEugenio daring to impugn the reputation of that august and

forthright "investigative" panel, beyond reproach, brimming with integrity, that was the Warren Commission !

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13908&view=findpost&p=179669

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_C._Clark#Controversy

Tom C. Clark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...Controversy

...Drew Pearson hinted in his syndicated column in October 1963 that Clark had told him that the FBI confirmed Ragen's accusations of Chicago mob control by leading businessmen and politicians. This was confirmed in the posthumous publication, eleven years later, of Drew Pearson's Diaries, 1949–1959; Tom Clark had told Pearson that Ragen stated that Henry Crown, the Hilton Hotels chain, and Walter Annenberg controlled the mob.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

Despite the disturbing information about Henry Crown, et al, Drew Pearson claimed was provided to him by Clark in 1946, Justice Tom Clark appointed Crown's son, John, as one of two of his 1956 Supreme Court session law clerks.[17] In December, 1963, Chief Justice Earl Warren, acting as head of the newly formed Presidential Commission investigating the death of President Kennedy, suggested that Henry Crown's attorney, Albert E. Jenner, Jr., who also, at that time employed Crown's son, John at Jenner's Chicago law firm, be appointed as a senior assistant Warren Commission counsel. Warren gave his fellow commissioners the names of two men who approved of Jenner's appointment, Tom C Clark and Dean Acheson. [18]

The appointment of Jenner to investigate whether either Oswald or Ruby acted alone or conspired with others remains controversial.[19][20]...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13908&view=findpost&p=187689

...Mr. McKENNA. How do you explain then that in the Central States case a 17%-percent retention figure was granted by Union Casualty? Why did they discriminate against your union?

Mr. DARLING. Mr. McKenna, I couldn't answer that. I know nothing about the Central States.

Mr. MCKENNA. That is, why should they have a 100-percent retention rate in your case and 171/2 percent in Central States ?

Mr. DARIJNG. I couldn't answer that. I know nothing about Central States. I never talked to anybody from Central States.

Mr. MCKENNA. According to the witnesses today 17^2 percent was by far the highest bid in the Central States case, otner bids were around 8 percent. Mr. DARLING. I wouldn't be able to answer that question; I don't know.

Mr. MCKENNA. You can see why we want to get to the facts there. There is a 100-percent retention rate in your case and we are comparing that with what seems to be an extremely large one of 17^ percent in the Central States case against the customarily one of probably 7 percent. Can you explain that for us?

Mr. Darling. Frankly, I have never heard, never even thought about it. I could only hazard a guess, and I am sure you have already thought of that one.

Mr. MCKENNA. What is your guess?

Mr. DARLING. That the rate for the package would be higher.

Mr. McKENNA. Well, if there is a low percentage rate, of course, it doesn't make much difference what the rate for insurance is, does it ? Because the difference goes back to the insured.

Mr. JENNER. The amount of the premium would have an effect, wouldn't it?

Mr. DARLING. I am talking about an amount of the premium.

Mr. MCKENNA. It would initially have an effect, but it would go back at the end of the year. If the premium were high, it would mean you get back more at the end of the year.

Mr. Darling. Now perhaps I was very green about it.....

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&tbs=bks%3A1&q=Mr.+Jenner.+%22Excuse+me%2C+I+don%27t+think+the+witness+understands+the+question.%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

Hearings United States. Congress. House. Committee on Education - 1953

[Greg Parker]

Asking questions about the logic of what CTers think the so-called "plotters/conspirators" did to frame Lee Oswald is wearisome, Greg?

Why would you ask what Gil thinks the plotters did when he has clearly stated exactly that in regard to this particular evidence?

Fact is, that is not what you are asking, Dave. You are asking loaded rhetorical questions regarding what such phony evidence means in terms of the mental faculties of the plotters.

Haven't you EVER asked yourself the logical "WHY DID THEY DO THINGS LIKE THIS?" questions I posed above, Greg Parker?

Yes I have Dave. And I have posted what I conclude about such questions appropriately. I don't rely on loaded rhetorical questions to divert attention if I cannot argue on the evidence.

If not--why not?

Edited March 6, 2011 by Greg Parker