Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sandy Larsen

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

Recommended Posts

Oh really, he was quoting you?

HT: [sic; there is no "HT", of course; it's HS]

Is Jim really right when he says: "All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in the two Nov. 22 murders (JFK's and Tippit's) has been faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey."

Have you lost it? Or can't you read the English language anymore?

He was quoting me, that is why he said what he did genius.

But you have stuck so many words in my mouth over time, that people cannot tell the difference anymore.

Which is why we are kaput.

Geesh. I can't believe I actually need to talk Jimmy through this easy stuff.

The words in quotation marks that Hank S. quoted are my words, which is obvious if you follow this thread for the last couple of pages. Sandy quoted me from my website. Hank then quoted Sandy who was quoting me.

Still need another blueprint, Jim?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren Commission Document No. 75, Page 668, is an FBI report that says a money order for $21.45 was sent to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago on March 16, 1963 (next-to-last paragraph)....

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10477#relPageId=672

Sure looks like the Hidell money order entered the federal banking system to me.

Maybe so. But if it did, it got lost and later was found. But it was never processed, a point that's indisputable.

And when I say "maybe so," that could be the case only if Klein's was willing to ship an order before being paid. Which actually might have been the case given that money orders are always good if genuine and are rarely forged.

HOWEVER.... remember, the money has been shown to be printed on paper, not card stock. So could it have even been accepted by the bank, or sent to the Federal Reserve Bank? Not likely IMO.

I think it's more likely that the Klein's witness is lying. (I can't remember his name and maryferrell.org is down right now.)

Why would he lie? Maybe he was told it was a matter of national security.

I just go where the evidence leads me, David. The money order wasn't processed, and probably wasn't even deposited in the bank.

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?

umm...

When they were stealing the money order, they thought it better just to make a copy lest a bank teller notices and reports the missing money order?

I dunno!

But I'm putting a lot of thought into it.

Wouldn't the real money order be sold and cashed, and in their system to be retrieved?

Wait, that won't work.

That's where this was discovered.

Right?

It depends on when the real money order was bought and cashed. But your point is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just go where the evidence leads me, David. The money order wasn't processed, and probably wasn't even deposited in the bank.

Okay, Sandy. Believe what you want. But I disagree.

But can you give me your opinion as to why the alleged plotters were so incompetent when it came to pretty much everything relating to the alleged "phony" rifle purchase?

E.G.,

Wrong paper stock used for the money order.

No bank stamps.

The rifle order and money order go from Dallas to Chicago in 24 hours, which is an impossibility if we're to believe the conspiracy theorists.*

They "shipped" the WRONG RIFLE, per DiEugenio and other CTers (sending "Hidell" a 40-inch Carcano instead of the 36-incher that "Hidell" ordered via the American Rifleman magazine ad). Why did they manufacture that little piece of confusion if the ENTIRE rifle transaction is nothing but a fantasy from the ground up---including ALL of the paperwork?

They forgot the proper legal forms for the rifle (which CTers insist should have been included with the rifle shipment; although Jean Davison in the past has made it quite clear, via documentation, that such a legal requirement only applied to HANDGUNS in 1963, not rifles).

* Incredibly, however, a letter that was mailed in January 1952 could go all the way across the country overnight--from California to New York. (Audio below.)

NEXT-DAY AIR MAIL SERVICE -- IN 1952!

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"But can you give me your opinion as to why the alleged plotters were so incompetent when it came to pretty much everything relating to the alleged "phony" rifle purchase?"

Quite simple, Dave. The plotters of the assassination and the people who took it upon themselves to cover up the truth of the assassination, by blaming the killing on Lee Harvey Oswald, were not the same people. The cover up was thrown together by desperate men with enough vision to see the calamitous and catastrophic results, should the truth ever be revealed about who really killed JFK, or who the plotters wanted the world to believe killed JFK.

As with anything thrown together at the last minute, there are bound to be mistakes made. Also, considering how vastly different things were in 1963, as opposed to today when authority is questioned at every turn, it may have been considered that the likelihood of anyone ever examining any of the evidence, as we regularly are able to do in great detail on the Internet, was remote in the extreme.

If the fate of the world really did hang in the balance, and the only salvation lay in sacrificing poor Lee Harvey Oswald, who knows, perhaps some day, in the distant future, the men behind the cover up may be remembered as heroes.

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

Hank,

When I read your post, it seemed at first like you are agreeing with what I said.

With this statement of yours

"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."

you are concluding that the Hidell MO is made with card stock. Right? That is also what I believe.

But if it is made with card stock, why is it that the "Mar 12 1963" postal stamp so readily bled through to the back? The fact that it bled though indicates that the MO we see is actually paper stock, not card stock. And this conclusion contradicts the conclusion of the prior paragraph.

You're assuming the bleed-through and card stock are mutually exclusive.

You haven't shown that.

I'm going by what I can see - and the key punch holes are consistent with the IBM punch cards I utilized as a programmer, that were made with card stock.

You appear to be assuming if there's bleed-through, then it can't be card stock.

But you haven't demonstrated that in any way.

Hank

Hank,

You are right, and I'm glad you challenged me.

I happened to have some 3" x 5" cards that are 0.007" thick, which is the same thickness as the old IBM cards. And some printer paper.

I have three stamps of different make, type, and color. Black and blue.

I did a number of informal tests. Here's what I found.

Card Stock - Heavy Hand:

Pushing the stamps down fairly hard on the cards for one second produced enough bleed-thru that I could make it out on the back side... barely. One end of one my stamps is on the wet side and I could easily see that, though not anywhere near as much as we can see the "Mar 12 1963" stamp on the MO.

Card Stock - Normal Hand:

Punching the stamps briefly, the way one normally would, on the cards produced very little bleed-thru, if any at all. I could barely make it out on the reverse side, and when I stamped on that side as well, it was difficult to see the print from the other side. In fact, I thought that what I could see wasn't due to bleed-thru, but rather was "seeing through" the card due to some translucency.

Paper Stock - Normal Hand:

Punching the stamps briefly, the way one normally would, on printer paper produced noticeable bleed-thru. In fact I could see all of it. Some of it was as bad as the "Mar 12 1963" stamp on the MO.

I was surprised that all three of those stamp marks on the printer paper could be easily seen on the back side. But then I realized that what I could see wasn't all due to bleed thru, but rather was "seeing through" the paper, again due to translucency.

Dark Background:

In all the above tests I looked at the paper/card with it placed on a white background. Realizing that some of what I'd seen was due to translucency, I tried looking at them again but on a dark background instead. Doing that made a huge difference... I could see much less from the opposite side, in all cases. In fact, I could see nothing at all through the card stock, even with the Heavy Hand stamps. So what I thought was a little bleeding through the card was actually due to its translucency. And when I could see all the stamps through the printer paper, that was mostly due to its translucency.

Preliminary Conclusion:

All in all, with all the stamping I did on both the card and paper, I can say without hesitation that the card didn't resemble the MO at all. But the printer paper was considerably worse than the money order. That was with a white background. With a dark background the printer paper was comparable with the MO.

My conclusion is that the MO isn't card stock. But either it is a thicker paper than what I have in the printer, or it was photographed on a dark background.

Final Conclusion:

I just took another look at the MO photographs. It does look like it was photographed on a dark background. My guess is that the photographer either knew or figured out right away that a dark background was needed to keep the print from the opposite side from showing.

So my final conclusion is that the money order isn't card stock. It is comparable with the paper I have in the printer, and it was photographed on a dark background.

End

I was actually hoping my conclusion would come out the other way... that would have been an easier thing to explain. But as I told DVP, I always go with the evidence.

I invite others to try this test themselves.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if it is made with card stock, why is it that the "Mar 12 1963" postal stamp so readily bled through to the back? The fact that it bled though indicates that the MO we see is actually paper stock, not card stock. And this conclusion contradicts the conclusion of the prior paragraph.

Nice point Sandy.

More stupidity on the part of your bumbling idiotic patsy framers, right Jimmy? They couldn't even get the right "card stock" to mimic a real U.S. Postal Money Order. What a band of goofs those plotters were.

But thank goodness we've got super sleuths like Armstrong, Josephs, Larsen, and DiEugenio on the scene now to figure all this out. Otherwise, Dulles, Ferrie, Shaw, and the stumblebum who used the wrong paper for CE788 would never have been found out and exposed!

"More stupidity on the part of your bumbling idiotic patsy framers, right Jimmy? They couldn't even get the right "card stock" to mimic a real U.S. Postal Money Order. What a band of goofs those plotters were."

David,

I have a theory that, if true, would explain a lot of stuff like this. It would also explain how a fairly large conspiracy could be accomplished without people talking. My theory isn't original, but may be unique as a whole.

I'm gonna try to keep this as brief as possible. It's based on the concepts of compartmentalization and "need-to-know" that are used by intelligence agencies, the military, and defense contractors. I'm familiar with these because I use to hold a number of top secret clearances.

First you need to understand how effective these methods can be. An example of their use was in the development of the F-117 stealth fighter. It was developed, built, tested, and put in production over a period of thirteen years before it's existence was finally revealed in 1988. Hundreds -- maybe in the low thousands -- of people worked on this project. And yet it was never leaked or discovered. Even with it being test flown numerous times.

The reason such a thing is possible is because each person working on the project is given only enough information to complete their task. This is the "need to know" concept at play. The vast majority of the people working on the fighter had no idea what they were working on.

I believe the same techniques were used in the Kennedy assassination. I also believe that the plotters kept themselves well insulated from those actually doing the work. Those doing the work took orders, but didn't really know what was going on.

I remember doing things myself, when I was in the business, that made no sense to me... I just did what I was told. To this day I have no idea what I was working on in many of my projects. A little has since been declassified, and I've been able to figure out what was going on. But that's only because I remember some code words being used at the time.

Anyway, so some CIA yahoos decide to kill the president. They have their lieutenants pass orders on down to lower level agents, who assign tasks to JFK-hating assets.

Some of these assents are less competent than others. These are the ones who make mistakes.

In addition, no plan is perfect and snafus happen. Those things are cleaned up later.

Disinformation, intimidation, blackmail is used to control people.

If you think this sort of thing doesn't happen or cannot happen, you are very naive. Look into the coups that have happened in other countries. Is the U.S. any different from those?

Another part of my theory is that the CIA rogues used blackmail to get officials to do things for them. I believe it wasn't hard to blackmail these people because they were already Kennedy haters. It would have been easy to find Kennedy haters among the Cubans, the Mafia, and Texans.

According to James Wagenvoord, an LIFE Magazine employee, in 1963 the magazine was about to publish an article about money that had been funneled from lobbyists and contractors to LBJ when he was in the Senate. The information was coming from Robert Kennedy's office and it was meant to force him off the 1964 presidential ticket. Can you imagine this being revealed to LBJ, followed by some threat if he didn't do what he was told to do? Don't you think there would be a chance LBJ would go along rather than face being disgraced as VP and possibly doing time? The other option being that he stays out of prison and becomes president?

I don't claim to be an expert on any of this stuff. But I know enough to understand it's not just the stuff of spy novels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still just waiting for evidence of this supposed need for a bank stamp on the back of a post office money order.

Surely something that exposes the conspiracy would not be just an assumption on everyone's part, would it?

Evidence?

Anyone?

Hank

Well I have shown, subsequent to your post here, that the MO in question would definitely have been processed by the Federal Reserve Bank. As all MOs still are today. Federal Reserve Banks do use stamps on the backs of financial instruments when they process them. And the wording on the reverse side of the MO refers to the use of bank stamps on the MO.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

But I'll tell you what, Hank... show me a processed postal money order that has no stamps, and I'll consider conceding to your side.

No, Sandy. Now you're asking me to disprove your claims. That's the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

I would think you'd be able to cite some legitimate processed postal money orders from the 1960's that show bank stamps on the back. That would be some proof.

Also, you could cite the 1963 then-current rules that show bank stamps would be required.

Hank

I don't have the time to do what you're asking for, Hank. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You also appear to be saying the FRB number is both on the money order in question and not on the money order in question:

ON THE MONEY ORDER:

Proof that postal money orders were processed by Federal Reserve Banks can be seen right on the Hidell MO itself.

Right below the MO's serial number (2,202,130,462) is the following symbol:

15-119

------

000

NOT ON THE MONEY ORDER:

In conclusion, we see that the Hidell money order was indeed intended to be processed by a Federal Reserve Bank.And so it would have had FRB numbers stamped on it had it been processed. It was never processed.

Can you advise?

Hank

I should have said "FRB Marks" instead of "FRB numbers." Thanks for pointing that out.

I haven't spent the time yet to understand what exactly the marks mean. But I know there are marks. And I thought I did see numbers when I took a quick glance at some of my checks. But of course I'll have to look at some 1963 checks to see what the marks were at that time.

Checks won't prove a thing. We're talking about Money Orders. Aren't we?

Checks and money orders are processed the same way. Federal Reserve Banks clear them both. I read the process a couple months ago, but can't find that manual right now. I could find no separate procedures for PMOs.

What's the numbers 138 01597856 at the very top of the Money Order signify?

I don't know. It appears to be some kind of internal number used by the USPS.

Hank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20.) All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in the two Nov. 22 murders (JFK's and Tippit's) has been faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey.

Can you explain how Oswald left his wallet at the Tippett murder scene and yet still had it when he was caught at the movie theater? Right there is rock solid evidence of framery in the Tippett case. And the fake money order is rock-solid evidence of framery in the JFK case. It need not be made more difficult than that to see that James is right.

Well, now we're getting far off the subject at hand, of the postal money order and the supposed evidence of fakery.

Is Jim really right when he says: "All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in the two Nov. 22 murders (JFK's and Tippit's) has been faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey."

ALL the physical evidence?

Jim didn't say all the evidence had been faked. DVP said that. I merely ignored the fact that DVP was exaggerating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Chicago bank could not have transferred (technically, negotiated) the M.O. and gotten paid for the $21.45 (or whatever) it remitted to Klein's without endorsing the money order.

That's a excellent point Jon. From my research on this topic, I actually read what you're saying here. But I didn't recognize the opportunity of arguing this point. A case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

This is not a matter of informed opinion or judgment, like an autopsy report. This is black letter law.

Can anyone document - with verifiable evidence - the claim that the PO Money Order has to be stamped by the local bank on the reverse side of the Money Order?

Hank,

See this:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22439

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The City Prefix indicates the location of the bank. It is 15 on the Hidell MO, signifying Washington, DC. The ABA Routing Number 119 is used for postal money orders.* The Federal Reserve Routing Symbol 0000 is used for postal money orders and Treasury checks.** (The leftmost 0 is removed for the fractional form.)"

What significance can be attached to the location of the bank being in Washington, DC, Sandy?

I should have clarified that the City Prefix indicates the location of the issuing bank. I believe that the issuing bank for postal money orders is the U.S. Post Office itself, but I haven't been able to verify that. In 1963 the U.S, Post Office was headquartered in the Old Post Office and Clock Tower building in Washington D.C. So I imagine that is the reason for Washington D.C. being the designated city.

I'm not sure I understand this. Does this mean the US Postal Service, headquartered in Washington, DC, was the "bank" that issued money orders for all of the post offices in the USA in 1963?

That would be my guess. It's like Chase Bank has hundreds of banks, but their City Prefix refers to their headquarters. The City Prefix was dropped from the Federal Reserve routing number when banks switch to the MICR (magnetic ink character recognition) system. Though it is still printed in the upper left corner of the check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just go where the evidence leads me, David. The money order wasn't processed, and probably wasn't even deposited in the bank.

Okay, Sandy. Believe what you want. But I disagree.

But can you give me your opinion as to why the alleged plotters were so incompetent when it came to pretty much everything relating to the alleged "phony" rifle purchase?

E.G.,

Wrong paper stock used for the money order.

No bank stamps.

The rifle order and money order go from Dallas to Chicago in 24 hours, which is an impossibility if we're to believe the conspiracy theorists.*

They "shipped" the WRONG RIFLE, per DiEugenio and other CTers (sending "Hidell" a 40-inch Carcano instead of the 36-incher that "Hidell" ordered via the American Rifleman magazine ad). Why did they manufacture that little piece of confusion if the ENTIRE rifle transaction is nothing but a fantasy from the ground up---including ALL of the paperwork?

They forgot the proper legal forms for the rifle (which CTers insist should have been included with the rifle shipment; although Jean Davison in the past has made it quite clear, via documentation, that such a legal requirement only applied to HANDGUNS in 1963, not rifles).

* Incredibly, however, a letter that was mailed in January 1952 could go all the way across the country overnight--from California to New York. (Audio below.)

NEXT-DAY AIR MAIL SERVICE -- IN 1952!

even today bud, to some cross country location Fedex overnight service is in reality 2 day service. Cross country 1st class *air mail* service circa 1963 was at least 3 day service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
even today bud, to some cross country location Fedex overnight service is in reality 2 day service. Cross country 1st class *air mail* service circa 1963 was at least 3 day service.

So the man who told Groucho Marx on the "You Bet Your Life" radio show in January 1952 that a letter could be delivered overnight from California to New York was just lying through his teeth. Is that what you think, DGH?

Maybe "they" were already starting to frame Oswald way back in '52, huh?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hank,

The Illinois General Assembly adopted the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) as of midnight, July 1, 1962. Articles III and IV of the UCC govern commercial paper and bank deposits. Although the UCC is "Uniform", it always has been adopted state by state. The purpose of the UCC was to bring the whole body of commercial law (sales, negotiable instruments, bank deposits, financing arrangements, etc.) into the modern world. One of the laws the UCC replaced was the Negotiable Instruments Law, which dated to 1907. Although you may regard what I write in this paragraph as mere assertion, any competent lawyer who studied the UCC in law school (I had three UCC courses) will affirm what I've just written.

It's true that postal money orders always have been governed by Title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). It's also true that the UCC is a state law, while the CFR are federal law. The current CFR explicitly require endorsement of postal money orders, just as the UCC requires endorsement of bank money orders. I'm trying to obtain the pertinent CFR Title 39 provisions for 1963. I say "trying" because although it's easy to obtain the current CFR, obtaining archived (specifically, 1963) CFR is a challenge. I expect, however, to be able to report here presently on the 1963 version of CFR Title 39. Thanks for giving me the incentive to do this research.

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...