Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sandy Larsen

Rectangular and round punch codes on the Hidell money order explained.

Recommended Posts

As far as I am aware, the FBI saw and examined the ORIGINAL money order---not a Xerox copy of a microfilm. Klein's never even had a microfilmed record of the money order at all.

We know via CD87 that the original M.O. was recovered from the Federal Records Center at Alexandria, Virginia.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490#relPageId=118

So why would the FBI and the Treasury Dept. (Alwyn Cole) experts use a copy when the original was readily available? The same thing with the HSCA handwriting experts. It makes no sense at all to do that.

there's a whole hell of a lot of photos that are in WCR files that are NOT originals, too! In fact all of them. And for very good reason, too! Any discrepancy or validity of ANY case related image the WC has to explain...oh-my...

So why not a little ole money order, too?

Edited by David G. Healy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, David, of course we only see a PHOTO of the money order (CE788) in the WC volumes. (What do you expect? You want the WC to deliver the original M.O. to your house so you can examine it?)

But the fact remains that the ORIGINAL money order was recovered in Virginia on Nov. 23 and was certainly available to the FBI and Treasury Department handwriting analysts. (Why WOULDN'T it be?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP asks, well how do you know the money order would need a stamp?

Maybe because the guy who owns Klein's said it had to pass through the Federal Reserve system?

Or did you not read the article by David Josephs on this? Maybe Jean Davison did not recommend it to you?

I wonder why?

See, this is research, not the net surfing you and Jean, and McAdams do

http://www.ctka.net/2015/JosephsRiflePart1.pdf

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From John Armstrong:

When postal money orders were produced/manufactured at the printing office (circa 1963) twelve small, rectangular holes were punched on the card stock used to make postal money orders. These punched holes, identified by Hollerith code as numeric numbers, matched the serial number printed on the front side of each postal money order. These holes made it possible for large volumes of postal money orders to be electronically sorted and arranged in a systematic way after being returned to a US Postal repository by the banking system. The rectangular punched holes on CE788 identify the serial number of this money order as 2,202,130,462. This was the postal money order allegedly used to pay for the Mannlicher Carcano rifle.

In the future all you need to do is ask these pundits to "put up or shut up." These people are good at confusing amateurs with carefully worded prose, but seasoned researchers know to ask for proof before giving any thought to their claims. It took me less than 60 seconds to realize and understand DVP's claims were without merit. Does this guy really think that the purpose of an IBM electronic/magnetic reader-sorter is to punch holes in checks and money orders??? Does he really think that each and every bank in the country had these very expensive machines in order to process checks and money orders like punch cards?????
Jim, this is unimaginable stupidity. Don't waste your time with these people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim, this is unimaginable stupidity. Don't waste your time with these people.

Speaking of unimaginable stupidity relating to Oswald's money order.....

RAY MITCHAM SAID:

From "Harvey and Lee" by John Armstrong:

"All US Postal Money orders have unique serial numbers. In the fall of 1962, Oswald purchased numerous money orders from the same downtown post office and mailed them to Washington, DC in order to repay a loan from the government for his travel expenses incurred when he returned to the USA from Russia. These money orders were purchased in numerical sequence beginning in November, 1962. These serial numbers show that some 1200 money orders per week were purchased at the downtown post office in Dallas. At this rate we see that Oswald's alleged purchase of a money order on March 12, 1963 should have been numbered 2,202,011,935. But the serial number of the money order published in the Warren Volumes was more than 118,000 numbers higher. At the rate of 1200 money order per week, this money order should have been purchased in late 1964 or early 1965. 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. A close look at the details surrounding the "finding" of the money order the day after the assassination strongly suggests that this is what happened."

[-- John Armstrong]

Any comments, Dave?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why couldn't the Dallas post office have simply run out of their supply of blank U.S. Postal money orders shortly before Oswald purchased his M.O. on March 12th? It's fairly obvious to me that that is what happened.

Does John Armstrong really think that the Dallas post office had an unlimited supply of money orders on hand at all times? How silly.

At some point, the supply of money orders would run low and the Dallas post office would replenish its stock. And when they do get fresh stock, the serial numbers are, of course, going to be much higher than the ones they just ran out of, since they are "U.S. POSTAL MONEY ORDERS" with unique serial numbers attached to each one and are being continuously supplied to post offices and other institutions all around the entire country, not just the Main Post Office branch in Dallas, Texas.

Why on Earth is my above "Ran out of stock and simply replenished their supply with money orders that obviously would have much higher serial numbers" explanation not even to be considered by conspiracy theorists like John Armstrong?

~big shrug~

BTW, HERE'S another official document (an FBI FD-302 report this time) which verifies that U.S. Postal Money Order #2,202,130,462, signed by "A. Hidell", was in the possession of the FBI in Washington on November 24, 1963 (the date in the lower left corner of the report).

A quote from that FBI report:

"This money order was hand carried to the FBI Laboratory where it was turned over to Special Agent James T. Freeman."

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a treat, John Armstrong is allowing me to quote him at length on this one:

As usual, the DVP's are presenting only part of the story. My question to you is why in the world do you even give these people the time of day?? You can spend a life time refuting their silly claims, and in the end what you have done is hopeless because these people will always come up with new ways to debunk anything that points to a conspiracy. When you find someone, anyone, who makes a practice of debunking you have a choice to stand beside them or stand against them--there is no middle ground.

Now, with that said, what do you think serious minded researchers think about people who believe in Judyth Baker, or DVP or McAdams any of the other pundits who never do any creative research, but limit their work to debunking?

I see that some of these idiots are saying that bank employees "punched" rectangular holes in checks and money orders after they were deposited to a bank. This is absolutely ridiculous!! One of these idiots claims that IBM reader/sorter #1219 and #1419 were used to make these punches. Jim, if you or anyone gives a xxxx about accuracy, then simply go to the IBM website and look up IBM reader/sorter #1219 and #1419. These are magnetic ink readers, repeat magnetic ink readers, and do not punch holes in any checks or money orders or deposits of any kind.
Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This almost never happens, but its continuing. More from John Armstrong:


Prior to 1963 postal money orders were "punched" with rectangular holes prior to deliver to the US post office for sale to customers, as were the stubs/receipts attached to the end of postal money orders. As you can see on many examples, with an uncashed postal money order from 1961 (front and back sides), with rectangular punched holes. And postal money order stubs, with rectangular holes.
Why don't you ask DVP, or any of these idiots, how the postal money order stubs can have rectangular punched holes prior to being deposited to a bank as they claim. And, by the way, do you notice that the ink from the postal stamps, payee, and payor did not bleed thru to the reverse side of the
money order?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Armstrong, final installment, makes it all the worse for Jean Davison and her net surfing "research":

These pundits claim that checks and postal money orders were processed by bank employees who used a machine (IBM #1219 and #1419) to punch each and every money order and check that was deposited. In the first place, IBM #1219 and #1419 were magnetic ink readers and could not punch holes of any kind. Secondly, simply look at LHO's payroll checks and you can see that none of the payroll checks had a punch hole of any kind.

Anyone who presents this kind of "debunking," and anyone who believes this kind of "debunking" without an ounce of proof, is an obvious fraud and should be avoided.
Now, serious researchers should be focusing attention on the postal stamps that appear on the front of the money order and on the signatures that appear on the back of the money order. An explanation is needed as to how the ink from the postal stamp and signatures can "bleed" thru to the other side of the money order (look at the postal money order from 1961, no bleed-thru whatsoever). Postal money orders were made from a card stock similar to an index card or an IBM type punch card-between 90# and 110# paper. The paper stock was crisp, firm, and ink "bleed-thru" to the reverse side was virtually impossible.
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. The "bleed-thru" is an indication that the paper upon which the original money order was printed is light enough to allow ink "bleed-thru." I don't understand how or why this was done. But I do know that the original postal money order disappeared long ago, and only FBI photographs remain. Why, how, and by whose authority caused the disappearance of the original money order is unknown. Only black and white photographs remain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this whole witless farrago is instructive though to see how their system works. And how it influences some people, who, as John says, are not really up to speed on the case. Also in understanding how the other side works--especially the DVP, Davison, McAdams cabal.

This started with Davison--who apparently has all kinds of idle time these days--surfing over at Greg Parker's ROKC. She finds a post by a guy named Greg Castle, and this post questions whether or not the postal money order was ever actually cashed.

My question would be: Who is Greg Castle and does he really know this issue back and forth? Because it is a highly complicated one, with layer after layer of subterfuge by the FBI. Which was then accepted as fact by the WC.

Jean Davison does none of that questioning of course. Because she is not interested in doing actual research, or finding out what the true facts are. She's like a dog with a bone.

So what does she do with this half baked observation instead? She passes it on to DVP, who she knows is her trusted flunky and will buy anything she says or does. And guess what? She is correct. Without doing one ounce of verification or review, DVP announced that all the work done on the postal money order has been "debunked". And he jumps on this site--just like Jean knew he would--and pronounces with 100% metaphysical certitude that such is the case.. Therefore wiping out the work of the late Ray Gallagher, Gil Jesus, David Josephs and John Armstrong.

And then, McAdams leaps up and shouts, "Congratulations!" As the reader can see, this is not research at all. Its the way a political campaign works. In this instance, Jean was like Karl Rove, finding something she could use to debunk a claim by the opposing candidate. She passed it on to her messenger boy DVP who dropped it in our midst without doing any due diligence. And then McAdams acts as the audience, furnishing a self reinforcing reaction.

Except, this is not a political campaign. Its the search for what really happened to President Kennedy. Therefore, its supposed to be a forensic and scholarly quest for a true evidentiary record, since we know the WC was a falsity of immense proportions. But that is not what they are about. So none of the three did any review of the facts, either internal to this particular Greg Castle observation, or whether this Castle claim fit in with the rest of the actual adduced record. And today there is a real record on this transaction which the WC completely ignored. Castle's observation made no sense to begin with, either on its own, or as part of the Gallagher-Jesus-Josephs-Armstrong revealed record. But that meant not one iota to them.

But even in spite of this, DVP still tried to argue his way through to preserve Davison's credibility and to savage the critics. Which is why he is a zealot. And as John noted, some people here actually briefly bought into this piece of salesmanship--because that is what it is, not scholarship. But really all it did was show that the Three Amigos never read David Josephs' latest two part work on this issue. Which incorporates all the previous work and adds new things to reinforce it. Because that is real research.

This is about the third or fourth time DVP has done this. Each time it turns out to the a misrepresentation of the true facts. How many strikes do you get?

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP asks, well how do you know the money order would need a stamp?

Maybe because the guy who owns Klein's said it had to pass through the Federal Reserve system?

Or did you not read the article by David Josephs on this? Maybe Jean Davison did not recommend it to you?

I wonder why?

See, this is research, not the net surfing you and Jean, and McAdams do

http://www.ctka.net/2015/JosephsRiflePart1.pdf

I'm not seeing anywhere in that article where it says a bank stamp needs to be applied to the back of the money order.

Where, precisely, do you see that affirmation?

In fact, it says something apparently incorrect, which is: "The Hidell/Klein’s PMO is of the old “Punch card” style (as you can see from the punched holes)and would be processed manually."

The entire point of the IBM punch card system is to read the cards via a card reader, convert the holes into data onto magnetic tape, and add it to a computer's database. No citation is listed for that "processed manually" claim either.

It still appears to be an assumption that checks and money orders were treated precisely the same way by banks, although they are completely different financial instruments.

Hank

Edited by Hank Sienzant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP asks, well how do you know the money order would need a stamp?

Maybe because the guy who owns Klein's said it had to pass through the Federal Reserve system?

Or did you not read the article by David Josephs on this? Maybe Jean Davison did not recommend it to you?

I wonder why?

See, this is research, not the net surfing you and Jean, and McAdams do

http://www.ctka.net/2015/JosephsRiflePart1.pdf

I'm not seeing anywhere in that article where it says a bank stamp needs to be applied to the back of the money order.

Where, precisely, do you see that affirmation?

In fact, it says something apparently incorrect, which is: "The Hidell/Klein’s PMO is of the old “Punch card” style (as you can see from the punched holes)and would be processed manually."

The entire point of the IBM punch card system is to read the cards via a card reader, convert the holes into data onto magnetic tape, and add it to a computer's database. No citation is listed for that "processed manually" claim either.

It still appears to be an assumption that checks and money orders were treated precisely the same way by banks, although they are completely different financial instruments.

Hank

Of course you can't see it Hank. What would be your purpose here if you could see it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×