Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

[Sandy Larsen]

I don't think it is helpful to keep discussing federal regulations adopted 25 or 50 years after punch-card postal money orders had become dinosaurs.

In saying that, you neglect to mention that the use of bank stamps on postal money orders was ALSO standard practice before the advent of punch card MOs. Both before AND after! And -- oh yeah -- also DURING the punch card era, as appears to be the case from evidence you yourself found.

Now what could have possibly happened that would have stopped what had been standard practice for decades? And for what reason would the practice have been started up again?? I find the notion of this scenario happening ridiculous.

The focus has to be on, what were the requirements and practices in 1963 (or at least in the first decade or so of the punch-card era)? I am pretty confident that if Sandy wants to take the trouble to review the CFR from 1936 to 1964, he is not going to find any regulation relating to the endorsement (often also spelled "indorsement" in the federal materials) of postal money orders.

I'm certain that I won't find any federal laws requiring bank stamps prior to 1987, because there apparently weren't any. The most I can hope to find are allusions to regulations or practice of using bank stamps. Like what I found in various Postal Handbooks dated ~1900 through 1925.

But there must be plenty of people 75 to 85 years old who were actually directly involved in the processing of postal money orders in 1963.

I'm sure of that too. The problem is finding them. And finding one who was knowledgeable of stamps on money orders specifically. And one who actually remembers.

I thought we were promised that John Armstrong had a response in the works and was soon going to be educating us. What happened with that? If he has nailed down the money order issue as decisively as we are led to believe he has, where's the beef?

I had a feeling Armstrong would ultimately throw his hands in the air and ask himself why he is wasting his precious time on matters such as this. After all, the bank stamp issue is probably irrelevant anyway. Because it appears that the Hidell money order is printed on regular paper, not card stock. Which, if true, would prove that the MO is a forgery.

Some time ago, I pointed out, "The idea that the money order should have four levels of endorsements (i.e., including Klein's) is attributed to Robert Wilmouth, Vice President of the First National Bank of Chicago. This is stated flatly in Harvey and Lee (page 451) and is repeated all over the Internet as though it were gospel, yet I have been unable to find where Wilmouth actually discussed the endorsement issue. I feel sure Armstrong did not invent this out of whole cloth, so I am hoping someone can steer us to the actual statement."

Can we at least nail that down - where is the Wilmouth statement? I'm not sure I'd regard a statement by a bank VP as the last word on the processing of postal money orders, but I'd at least like to see what he actually said.

I am perfectly open to being proved wrong on the "money order mystery." I just simply find it almost decisive that (1) the money order somehow ended up with a File Locator Number on it, which ordinarily is proof of final processing, (2) the money order was in fact located after the assassination through what appears in the record as a pretty standard locating procedure, and (3) if the Final Locator Number is fake, the conspirators rather stupidly omitted the endorsements that we are told should be there. Perhaps 2+2 can sometimes be something other than 4 in a quantum universe, but I am having a hard time making the money order mystery add up.

Here's a possible scenario: The bad guys decide to forge a money order. They purchase one, cash it, and then request a copy afterward to see what a processed one looks like. They get the copy and see the file allocator number on it. What they don't see is the back side, as that side wasn't copied and returned to them. Perhaps they even realize that might be a problem. But they go ahead with what they know and make their forged MO, including the file locator number and Klein's stamp. Loose ends can be mopped up later, if necessary.

[David Von Pein]

Since 1987 postal money orders have, by law, required bank endorsements.

Also see:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12852.msg411406.html#msg411406

[David Von Pein]

It appears that the Hidell money order is printed on regular paper, not card stock. Which, if true, would prove that the MO is a forgery.

More stupidity on the part of the patsy framers. Their idiocy and bumbling never ceased, did it, Sandy?

Here's a possible scenario: The bad guys decide to forge a money order. They purchase one, cash it, and then request a copy afterward to see what a processed one looks like.

Via that scenario, the patsy framers would have known what thickness of paper stock to use for their fake money order. And yet they STILL used the wrong kind of paper?

What a bunch of boobs.

Edited December 2, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

I think the postal money order question is a false trail which detracts from the real issues with the rifle. It is likely that LHO ordered it and paid for it. Likewise it is likely that he picked it up from the Post Office despite the lack of proof that he did so. The questions are why did he order the rifle, and what did he do with it once it was in his possession? Why would an assassin deliberately leave a trail to the murder weapon he intended to use to kill someone, Walker or JFK? Makes no sense, and leads inevitably to the conclusion that the motive for buying the weapon by mail remains obscure. It seems to me a more fruitful approach to examine this than to try to prove that somehow he was framed post assassination. Too many pieces have to be explained, too much testimony dismissed, once we accept the postulate that he never purchased or owned the rifle.

If I believed what you do, Paul, I'd go a step further and concede that Buell Wesley Frazier was probably wrong about the length of the package, and that Oswald took the rifle to the TSBD. I think it's much more likely he's mistaken than all the rifle purchase irregularities being mere coincidences. I might even go a step further and concede that Oswald shot the rifle but, for whatever reason, lucked out and passed the residue tests. Just more irregularities, that's all.

But I don't believe what you do. I think there are too many rifle-purchase irregularities. And I think it is VERY easy to explain witnesses providing deceptive testimony supporting the WC's pre-conceived conclusion. Just have an important official tell certain witnesses that lies are necessary to avoid nuclear war. Done.

BTW, have you discussed/debated what you say here -- that Oswald did buy the rifle -- with David Joseph? If so I'd like to read the thread. Even if it changes my mind... makes no difference to me.

[Guest]

I am speaking from memory here and thus am willing to be corrected, but I recall in reviewing the Armstrong materials at Baylor University that there was a seemingly innocuous contemporary document referring to the fact that the money order showed evidence of having becoming wet at one point, which would explain the apparent bleeding-through.

Good Lord, if the conspirators were so incredibly inept that they couldn't even use the correct punch-card stock, surely the answer after the assassination would have been "The money order was destroyed in accordance with applicable regulations" or something like that. It's like we're dealing with a religion here - the money order must be phony, or there is no God.

Come on, John Armstrong's time is no more precious than mine. At least steer me to the Wilmouth statement.

[Sandy Larsen]

Since 1987 postal money orders have, by law, required bank endorsements.

But unless someone can prove that the 10-digit File Locator Number stamped at the top of the Hidell money order is fake (which nobody is ever going to be able to prove, of course), then there is solid EVIDENCE that the CE788 money order did go through the regular banking channels in order to reach the FRB.

Yes, evidence, but a far cry from being proof. Otherwise, someone could buy that punch card money order on e-Bay for $100, stamp a file locator number on it, and declare that it has therefore been processed. Even though we all know that it hasn't.

And if some conspiracy believers want to maintain that a First National Bank endorsement was necessary on a processed money order in 1963, and if those same CTers also believe that the File Locator Number seen on the Hidell M.O. is a fraudulent number and was placed there by conspirators who wanted to frame Lee Harvey Oswald, then the question MUST be asked:

If the plotters were smart enough to know they needed to fake the File Locator Number on the money order, then why didn't they also realize that they needed to fake a First National Bank stamped endorsement on the back of the money order as well?

See the last paragraph of post #166 for a simple scenario explaining how that could happen.

[David Von Pein]

Well, since every last thing connected with the JFK evidence COULD have been fake, then what's the use of even pointing out the "evidence" against Oswald at all?

Such talk about everything being fake or manufactured borders on the insane with a lot of Internet conspiracy believers.

It's been proven that there's a "File Locator Number" on the Hidell money order (just as there should be)....so the CTers move the goalposts and now claim that the FLN is fake too (in addition to the PERFECT Oswald handwriting on the money order too, remember, which many CTers also insist was forged onto the M.O.; and it was such a perfect forgery, it fooled EVERY single handwriting expert who ever testified about the writing on the M.O. for the WC and HSCA; and those experts, remember, had the ORIGINAL money order to examine, not just a copy).

And there's Waldman #7, which many CTers insist was ALSO a forgery, of course, even though that document was pulled from the files of Klein's in Chicago by Klein's personnel on 11/23/63. (I guess the Klein's people were "in" on the plot too.)

In short, when someone needs to jump through so many different "It Was Fake" hoops, it's my opinion that it's probably a good sign that the person jumping through all those hoops is wrong---and Oswald was just flat-out guilty AND ordered that rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods, which is exactly what the sum total of evidence clearly indicates--and proves beyond a reasonable doubt.

Edited December 2, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

Since 1987 postal money orders have, by law, required bank endorsements.

Also see:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12852.msg411406.html#msg411406

In that thread someone named Tom Scully says:

"David or Hank,

Would you please put this in front of that stubborn guy who is still, at long last, misleading readers....."endorsements were required before 1925 and after 1987, blah, blah, blah......."

I may be stubborn, but I am in no way misleading people. All I've done is quote regulations and laws from official documents.

If Scully want's to make an argument, he should come here and present his evidence. I welcome it. But the "fine sort" program he speaks of appears to me to be irrelevant to this thread. It is, however, relevant to certain claims regarding the Hidell money order. Scully should consider starting a new thread here and presenting his evidence.

[Sandy Larsen]

It appears that the Hidell money order is printed on regular paper, not card stock. Which, if true, would prove that the MO is a forgery.

More stupidity on the part of the patsy framers. Their idiocy and bumbling never ceased, did it, Sandy?

I'm baffled by it too David. But the evidence appears to show that regular paper was used, not card stock. Or maybe "thick" paper.

I bought some 60s era punch-card MO receipts on eBay to do some tests. I couldn't get the bleed-thru seen on the Hidell MO to occur on standard 3" x 5" cards, which are the same thickness as punch money orders (7 mils). Maybe bleed-thru will be worse on the authentic card stock.

[Sandy Larsen]

Come on, John Armstrong's time is no more precious than mine. At least steer me to the Wilmouth statement.

The older I get, the more precious my time becomes. I don't know how old Armstrong is, but the mere fact that he doesn't participate on the forums tells me he's got better things to do.

EDIT: I just viewed a 2009 video oh Armstrong. He looks pretty young actually.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[David Von Pein]

I am in no way misleading people. All I've done is quote regulations and laws from official documents.

Well, Sandy, the way you got the "Disbursement Money Order" thing completely wrong was certainly a bit misleading. Although I don't think for a second that you were *deliberately* trying to mislead anybody. You, just like me and everybody else except Hank Sienzant, simply didn't scroll back to the previous page in the postal regulations you cited.

But there's no way you were intentionally trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes, because who in their right mind would try to do something like that while at the same time providing a link with information that proves he's dead wrong (which Sandy provided in this thread)?

Edited December 2, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Doug Buitenbos]

@Sandy, are you suggesting that conspirators went through the trouble of purchasing a money order and sending it through processing only to fabricate a money order from scratch in the end?

Edited December 2, 2015 by Doug Buitenbos

[David Von Pein]

Worth repeating....

"How did the money order get to the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia, if it wasn't cashed and then processed by SOMEBODY? Did a money order with the name "A. Hidell" on it suddenly fall from the sky and into the Records Center building in Alexandria?" -- DVP; 11/9/15

Or are we supposed to believe that CD87 (below) is ALSO a fake document filled with lies?....

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490#relPageId=119

As well as CD75?....

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

In other words, how many layers of confirmation are needed in order for CTers to be satisfied that Lee Oswald purchased the CE788 money order and it ended up just where it supposed to end up---at the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia?

Edited December 2, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

I am in no way misleading people. All I've done is quote regulations and laws from official documents.

Well, Sandy, the way you got the "Disbursement Money Order" thing completely wrong was certainly a bit misleading.

Well that was then and now is now. Though I suppose I could be wrong again.

BTW, speaking of Tom Scully, I'm impressed by what he has dug up. I assume he was the one who dug it up... I had a hard time following his long posts. Plus I saw quotes and nothing stating who is being quoted. And in one post he speaks of himself in the third person. Very confusing.

[David Von Pein]

BTW, speaking of Tom Scully, I'm impressed by what he has dug up. I assume he was the one who dug it up... I had a hard time following his long posts. Plus I saw quotes and nothing stating who is being quoted. And in one post he speaks of himself in the third person. Very confusing.

Yes, Sandy, I agree that Tom Scully's posts and large number of linkages can be a bit confusing and hard to follow. But even though I have disagreed strongly with him in the past (he's a hard-nosed CTer, btw; he's not an "LNer" by any means), Scully has done some great work in digging up information on *this* "money order" topic to be sure. (As have Sandy Larsen and Lance Payette as well.)

FWIW / FYI....

I've archived about 80% to 90% of this rambling, rollercoaster "Money Order" discussion at my own website (at the link below), which includes discussions funnelling in from four different forums where I've been involved in discussing it with various people. I've tried to make all the material coherent and readable as I copied it to my site as the debate continued in chronological order during the last several weeks.

See the 13 source links at the bottom of the page to read 100% of all discussions. Although I doubt anyone with a life would possibly want to subject themselves to that kind of Tedium Overload. But I've included all of the forum source links anyway, just for "completion" sake....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html

Edited December 2, 2015 by David Von Pein