Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sandy Larsen

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

Recommended Posts

When I was searching for information on money orders using punch codes, I came across the same news article pointed out by David Von Pein:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19620623&id=2PQiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Nc0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=5330,4714873&hl=en

This 1962 article reports on a new money that uses punched holes on "IBM-like" cards which could be read by machines. At the time, I dismissed the relevancy of the article because IBM cards were made of a thick/stiff stock of paper, whereas the Hidell MO was clearly made of a thin paper. Given that the Hidell money order similarly used punched holes, I figured that it must be some kind of predecessor to the IBM-like card MOs being tested at select locations, as mentioned in the article.

At that point I wondered how it was possible for a machine to read MOs like the Hidell one. Such thin sheets of paper could not have been kept in correct alignment for a machine to read the holes. Some form of "registration" was needed. ("Registration," in technical parlance, is a term used to mean "means for maintaining correct alignment.")

At the time, I figured that the round holes in the MO must have been what was used for registration purposes. The MOs would have been placed on a plate with pins perfectly matched to the size and location of the MO's round holes, and these would hold the MOs securely in place while the machine read the rectangular holes.

I later rejected that idea when I looked more closely and noticed that the holes seemed to be spaced perfectly for holding numerical information. After that I simply forgot about the registration problem, as I went on to decode the round holes.

Well, today I remembered the registration problem when I again saw that 1962 news report about the IBM-like card MOs. And I thought, since the round holes were not used for registration, how was it possible for a machine to have reliably read the holes in MOs like the Hidell one?

Well, now I realize that the Hidell MO is almost certainly the same MO reported on in the news article. That explains how the holes in the card could have been read by a machine. It makes perfect sense that the Dallas post office began using the new card around the same time as the post offices noted in the news article. (Actually, the post offices noted were in "... nine states, ... Florida, Georgia, and North and South Carolina, all in the Atlanta postal region, and five states in the Denver region." Texas was likely one of the five states in the Denver region, with Dallas being among the post offices using the new money order)

Having concluded that, I now have a full appreciation for John Armstrong's criticism regarding bleed-thru of stamps on the Hidell MO. In my opinion, the bleed-thru of the "Mar 12 1963" postal stamp is PROOF POSITIVE that the Hidell MO is made of regular (thin) paper, not the card stock that it should have been made of. THIS IS YET ANOTHER SMOKING GUN OF A FAKED MONEY ORDER.

This money order is fake, fake, fake! It is strong evidence Oswald was being framed as the shooter of JFK.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the time line, it refers to the money order being passed through the federal reserve system. See 11/23/63 the ten am entry.

As is demonstrated, when that happens a mark is placed on it.

Bob: Thanks for the tip. I guess Jean took such beating on this, they are sending in the damage control team.

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

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

Do you see it?

If so, where do you see it?

Can you quote for me where it's pointed out money orders should be stamped by the bank in the document cited?

Hank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy:

That is another mystery is it not?

I mean the bleed through. I don't see how it can be ignored.

It really does seem to me to be a big faux pas, one which the WC apparently swallowed.

I mean can someone explain it innocently?

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the time line, it refers to the money order being passed through the federal reserve system. See 11/23/63 the ten am entry.

As is demonstrated, when that happens a mark is placed on it.

Bob: Thanks for the tip. I guess Jean took such beating on this, they are sending in the damage control team.

At the 10am entry I see this:

"FBI SA Gale Johnson, James Hanlon and Phillip Wanerus supposedly

interview Wilmouth - VP 1st National Chicago. Appears to only be

ONE $21.45 Money Order yet Wilmouth says the original PMO would

go to the Fed Reserve of Chicago on Monday the 18th of March."

Nothing about a bank stamp being applied to the back of the PO Money Order.

Where do I see the support for the claim that a bank stamp needs to be applied?

As I said above, it appears to be only an assumption that personal checks and money orders were handled by banks in 1963 in the precise same way, although they are completely different financial instruments.

"Damage Control" is another group entirely. I'm part of the "Your Assumptions are not Evidence" team. :D

Hank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the warning again Bob.

That will be it with me and Hank.

Nice pic by the way.

(To the innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire, Hank posts at McAdams' web site and uses aliases elsewhere. Therefore this is a further demonstration of my analysis of how they work. He is part of damage control.)

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me restate this since I think Sandy's observation is well taken:

I mean the bleed through. I don't see how it can be ignored.

It really does seem to me to be a big faux pas, one which the WC apparently swallowed.

I mean can someone explain it innocently?

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You had a nice contribution there also Sandy.

Thanks James. Thanks also to Robert, Chris, and Jon. Appreciation like this makes it worth the effort it takes to contribute. Of course, desire to know the truth is the real motivator.

Special thanks to DVP, who says my work is "amazing." :P

Post #22 in http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22418&page=2

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?

I've already admitted that I was wrong about the punch holes being placed in Oswald's money order as a part of processing the M.O. Here's exactly what I said yesterday....

"More information (from 1962 newspaper accounts) on the punch holes, dug up by Tom Scully, is available HERE and HERE.

Looks like a nice big defeat for the "LN" side regarding the "punch holes".

Celebrate, CTers! Looks like you won this one.

But, I can't help but repeat....

How in the heck do CTers think the Hidell money order managed to get to the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia, if it wasn't cashed and then processed by someone?

~big shrug~" -- DVP; 11/10/15

~~~~~~~~~~~~

What do you want now---a pint of my blood? Geez.

And maybe you'd like to ask John Armstrong about that "OUT OF SEQUENCE MONEY ORDER" theory of his. Ask him if he really thinks the Dallas Post Office was the ONLY post office selling U.S. Postal Money Orders in early 1963.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My question would be: Who is Greg Castle and does he really know this issue back and forth?

His name is Brian Castle. Not Greg. ....

http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13267538-about-that-money-order-

And if we want to get into a debate about which side produces more lame-ass theories and pure speculative nonsense relating to the JFK assassination -- LNers or CTers -- I could go on for days about how the CTers of the world have added more sheer crap to the table than all of the LNers of the planet combined. And I've documented thousands of examples of this at my own website.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the warning again Bob.

That will be it with me and Hank.

Nice pic by the way.

(To the innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire, Hank posts at McAdams' web site and uses aliases elsewhere. Therefore this is a further demonstration of my analysis of how they work. He is part of damage control.)

Nope. "Damage Control" is a different group. I'm part of the "Your Assumptions are not Evidence" team.

I'm just looking for the evidence that PO Money Orders need to have a bank stamp.

I don't see that established anywhere. I understand that checks need that; but checks are a different financial instrument entirely. I also pointed out an apparent erroneous claim within the cited document -- that the money orders were processed manually; but that ignores entirely the fact that the entire point of the keypunch money order is that it's machine-readable.

I'm willing to see evidence. I just haven't been shown any.

And Jim just shutting down like that ("That will be it with me and Hank") apparently means he can't point to any evidence either.

Hank

Edited by Hank Sienzant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean the bleed through. I don't see how it can be ignored.

It really does seem to me to be a big faux pas, one which the WC apparently swallowed.

I mean can someone explain it innocently?

Sure. There must have been a "heavier hand" being applied by both Lee Oswald (whose written words are bleeding through just a little bit on the CE788 money order) and the postal employee who stamped the M.O. in the lower right-hand corner. More pressure on the pen or the inked stamp means more ink being absorbed by the paper. Hence, it bleeds through to the other side.

If the 1961 money order mentioned earlier by John Armstrong has no bleed-thru, and *IF* it was the exact same thickness of paper stock as CE788 (which I don't suppose can ever be confirmed with 100% certainty), then I suppose that would indicate the people who wrote on and/or stamped that 1961 money order just didn't apply as much pressure as Oswald and the post office clerk applied to the CE788 money order on March 12, 1963.

Is that "innocent" explanation not nearly good enough for you, James? (Silly question, I know.)

Plus, it's also possible (I suppose) that between 1961 and 1963, a lighter weight and thinner paper stock was being used for U.S. Postal Money Orders, which would, of course, lend themselves more to "bleed-thru".

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the bleed-thru of the "Mar 12 1963" postal stamp is PROOF POSITIVE that the Hidell MO is made of regular (thin) paper, not the card stock that it should have been made of.

Hi Sandy,

Respectfully, in my opinion, it's not proof of that.

Regular paper money orders wouldn't have the keypunch card holes; as they can't feed through the machine readers like the card stock ones. They would serve no purpose on thin paper.

Have you ever seen one of those suckers in action? Have you ever fed a stack of punched cards through a machine reader?

Since the PO MO in question has the keypunch card holes - meant to be fed through, and read by machine readers - then the PO MO in question must be card stock.

As far as I can see. But of course, I couldn't see the evidence that PO MO's need to be stamped by a bank, either.

Does anyone have any evidence that's anything more than an assumption?

Hank

Team "Opinions are Not Evidence" Member

Edited by Hank Sienzant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what does she [Jean Davison] do with this half baked observation instead? She passes it on to DVP...

Totally untrue. I merely saw Jean's post at the McAdams forum and decided to re-post it here. Jean wasn't "passing" anything on to ME specifically at all.

Jean, in fact, is a current member of this forum and she can post here anytime she wants. She's been a member since August 22, 2004, as we can see here in her profile....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=1129

So she certainly doesn't need me (or anyone else) to serve as a go-between when it comes to posting at this forum.

Time for DiEugenio to wipe a little egg off of his face now. I had to do that yesterday when I fully admitted I was wrong about the "punch holes" topic. Will Jim do likewise now and retract his wholly inaccurate quote cited above?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what does she [Jean Davison] do with this half baked observation instead? She passes it on to DVP...

Totally untrue. I merely saw Jean's post at the McAdams forum and decided to re-post it here. Jean wasn't "passing" anything on to ME specifically at all.

Jean, in fact, is a current member of this forum and she can post here anytime she wants. She's been a member since August 22, 2004, as we can see here in her profile....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=1129

So she certainly doesn't need me (or anyone else) to serve as a go-between when it comes to posting at this forum.

Time for DiEugenio to wipe a little egg off of his face now. I had to do that yesterday when I fully admitted I was wrong about the "punch holes" topic. Will Jim do likewise now and retract his wholly inaccurate quote cited above?

perhaps Jean felt you needed some assistance since your back-slide yesterday?

And now, old Henry shows up here on the Ed Forum. Actually, I can understand that turn of event, what with the continued drubbing you and Henry are undergoing by Ben Holmes and friends at AMAZON. It's a darn shame old Hank can't deal with posted case evidence at AMAZON, so he flees to assist you here...

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

×
×
  • Create New...