Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

[Guest]

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

This is a point I have tried to emphasize in regard to the money order and various other items of "conspiracy evidence." To preserve their status as "conspiracy evidence" requires expanding the conspiracy to almost absurd levels. When you review the procedure by which the money order was located after the assassination, it was entirely routine. For the money order to be faked and planted precisely where it should be within the Federal Records Center, for quick location after the assassination, would require some serious inside assistance. This was somehow accomplished, yet the dolts used the wrong card stock and overlooked the need for bank endorsements. It just doesn't add up.

Why does no one address the Wilmouth statement, which seems to have become the Gospel for the fact that the money order should have bank endorsements? I said many posts ago that I was sure Armstrong had not invented it out of whole cloth, but now I'm beginning to wonder. Can no one point me to a link to this Holy Grail?

[Sandy Larsen]

@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?

Well, it's just speculation on my part of course. But it seems like somebody could buy a money order, cash it, then request a copy. After that, buy another money order, and bribe the postal worker to pre-date it. (Or if they have a postal worker friend, have him do it.) Then have an expert handwriting forger put Oswald's handwriting on the form. Finally, get a rubber stamp made and stamp a fake file locator number on it. Oh, one last thing... get a Klein's endorsement stamp made and stamp the back.

But at the moment I don't think that is what happened, because it appears to me that the money order was actually made on regular paper, not the real card stock. Because the ink has bled through all over the place. Why anybody would fabricate a money order on regular paper, I have no way of knowing. And it makes no sense to me. But that's what appears to have happened. I have a hard time believing that the bleed-thru that we see is actually due to the MO getting wet, as Lance notes has been suggested.

Actually, I can think of one reason why regular paper might be used. If the intention was to merely provide photographs to the authorities, not a real money order, using a photocopier to make the MO could be handy. It could be retouched and then photocopied again, and repeated if necessary. When finished, a photo is given to the WC.

If this were the case, one would have to explain how it was that somebody actually held and carried the MO from Alexandria, or wherever it was the MO came from. I don't know the details enough to determine if that was feasible.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

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

Thanks for doing that David. It makes it less likely that some important information will somehow vaporize. For example if somebody gets banned and has all his posts deleted. (I hate that that happens. Not the banning part, but the deleting part.)

[David Von Pein]

Well, it's just speculation on my part of course. But it seems like somebody could buy a money order, cash it, then request a copy. After that, buy another money order, and bribe the postal worker to pre-date it. (Or if they have a postal worker friend, have him do it.) Then have an expert handwriting forger put Oswald's handwriting on the form. Finally, get a rubber stamp made and stamp a fake file locator number on it. Oh, one last thing... get a Klein's endorsement stamp made and stamp the back.

But at the moment I don't think that is what happened, because it appears to me that the money order was actually made on regular paper, not the real card stock. Because the ink has bled through all over the place. Why anybody would fabricate a money order on regular paper, I have no way of knowing. And it makes no sense to me. But that's what appears to have happened. I have a hard time believing that the bleed-thru that we see is actually due to the MO getting wet, as Lance notes has been suggested.

Actually, I can think of one reason why regular paper might be used. If the intention was to merely provide photographs to the authorities, not a real money order, using a photocopier to make the MO could be handy. It could be retouched and then photocopied again, and repeated if necessary. When finished, a photo is given to the WC.

If this were the case, one would have to explain how it was that somebody actually held and carried the MO from Alexandria, or wherever it was the MO came from. I don't know the details enough to determine if that was feasible.

As I said before, Sandy, when you have to go through THAT MANY wholly unprovable (and, frankly, crazy) contortions in order to make that money order a "fake" M.O., isn't it just time to admit the obvious? -- I.E., that Lee Oswald, with his own handwriting, purchased a regular money order at the post office in Dallas on 3/12/63 and then mailed it to Klein's, who then, in turn, stamped it with their "Pay To The Order" rubber stamp and sent it on to their bank in Chicago, who then, in turn, sent it on to the next stop (the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago; despite the lack of a "First National" stamp on the M.O.; but it seems pretty obvious to me that such a stamped endorsement was not required for U.S. Postal Money Orders in March 1963), with the FRB in Chicago then sending the M.O. on to its final resting place in Alexandria/Washington.

Sandy, do you really think there are truly more reasons to believe the Hidell money order was fraudulent than there are reasons to believe it was a legitimate document that made the normal, non-sinister journey I just laid out above?

Edited December 2, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Thanks for doing that David. It makes it less likely that some important information will somehow vaporize. For example if somebody gets banned and has all his posts deleted. (I hate that [when] that happens. Not the banning part, but the deleting part.)

Exactly, Sandy!

And that is a big reason why I like to "archive" everything I post at my own Blog site. For safe-keeping. (But there's always the Wayback Machine [at Archive.org] that can retrieve many pages of Edu. Forum threads that have been deleted. But it can't retrieve anything beyond "Page 3" of a thread, unfortunately.)

Edited December 2, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

Why does no one address the Wilmouth statement, which seems to have become the Gospel for the fact that the money order should have bank endorsements? I said many posts ago that I was sure Armstrong had not invented it out of whole cloth, but now I'm beginning to wonder. Can no one point me to a link to this Holy Grail?

Yours is a very good question, Lance. I'd also like to see that answered. And I'd also like to see John Armstrong post his new information. I just kinda gave up on both. Hopefully Armstrong is just needing more time to finish his work.

But I know how things go. There are some loose ends I've wanted to wrap up on some prior topics myself, but just can't seem to find the time. Life goes on.

[Sandy Larsen]

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.

The problem I have is that there are so many irregularities in the rifle-ordering evidence.

But that alone wouldn't have aroused my suspicion. There are other things in the official story that I simply cannot accept, like 40 medical witnesses to a gaping hole in the back of JFK's head, and yet the back-of-head autopsy photo shows nary a scratch. Evidence in the archive that changes or disappears. Oswald's wallet being found in two locations at the same time. Heck... two OSWALDs! There is virtually nothing normal in the whole Oswald-shot-JFK narrative. It's crazy. Just plain crazy.

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy, do you really think there are truly more reasons to believe the Hidell money order was fraudulent than there are reasons to believe it was a legitimate document that made the normal, non-sinister journey I just laid out above?

I wouldn't be questioning the money order if missing stamps was the only irregularity. I might have even dropped it today or sometime soon if it weren't for the ink bleeding thru. But naturally I don't intend on spending a great deal more time on this aspect of the case. There are other more important things to investigate. I chose this only because it seemed to be simple at the time.

The bleeding ink is harder to understand than the missing stamps.

[David Von Pein]

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.

The bleeding ink is harder to understand than the missing stamps.

How much pressure did you use when you placed the ink on the paper when you did your test for bleed-thru on the money orders you said you tested?

Here's my previous exchange with Jim DiEugenio on this issue. Do neither of my possible explanations fall into the category of "reasonable explanations", Sandy? ....

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

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?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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.

[...]

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 December 2, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Guest]

But that alone wouldn't have aroused my suspicion. There are other things in the official story that I simply cannot accept, like 40 medical witnesses to a gaping hole in the back of JFK's head, and yet the back-of-head autopsy photo shows nary a scratch. Evidence in the archive that changes or disappears. Oswald's wallet being found in two locations at the same time. Heck... two OSWALDs! There is virtually nothing normal in the whole Oswald-shot-JFK narrative. It's crazy. Just plain crazy.

This is very true. There is legitimate cause for puzzlement everywhere one turns, from the dichotomies in LHO's personality, to his facility with the very difficult Russian language, to his Marine service, to his defection, to his time in the USSR, to his marriage, to his return, to his activities upon his return, to his activities on the day of the assassination, to his conduct after his arrest; to the dichotomies between the Parkland witnesses and the Bethesda witnesses; to the dichotomies in the testimonies of the Dealey Plaza witnesses; to the Single Bullet Theory; to the apparent discrepancies in the Zapruder film and the autopsy films; to the apparently obstructionist tactics of the CIA and FBI. It is truly a Rorschach test like nothing I've ever seen (and I have followed other Rohrschach tests like Roswell and the Shroud of Turin very, very closely). I am not pooh-poohing anything you have suggested, and I still regard Harvey and Lee as among the most valuable resources in my JFK collection.

But because there is so much cause for puzzlement everywhere one turns, I think we need to (1) remember that reality is often very messy and the evidence often points in diverse directions, even when there is no conspiracy afoot; (2) remember that the more elaborate and complex a suspected conspiracy seems to be, the less likely it is to be true; (3) maintain some perspective and not be too quick to embrace every cause for puzzlement as though it must be evidence of a conspiracy; and (4) be very demanding of every piece of evidence before we accept it as a genuine part of the jigsaw puzzle. A fake money order carries with it a lot of baggage; it pretty much requires an elaborate and complex (i.e., inherently implausible) conspiracy. John Armstrong is wedded to it, but we have no reason to be wedded to John Armstrong even if we lean toward a conspiracy. I believe it is the sort of evidence that should require a fantastically high level of confidence before we plug it into the jigsaw puzzle.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Guest

[Sandy Larsen]

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.

The bleeding ink is harder to understand than the missing stamps.

How much pressure did you use when you placed the ink on the paper when you did your test for bleed-thru on the money orders you said you tested?

Here's my previous exchange with Jim DiEugenio on this issue. Do neither of my possible explanations fall into the category of "reasonable explanations", Sandy? ....

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

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?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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.

[...]

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".

I have a bunch of stamps and I tried pushing them down hard and holding for one second. No detectable bleed-thru. I tried the same with a red magic marker and I could see a faint dot from that. But nothing like the date stamp bleed-thru on the Hidell MO.

What I want to do is get some pens, the type they used in the 1960s. They aren't ball-point pens, for sure. So I need to get what they had then and see if bleeding occurs from signing signatures. You can see bleed-thru from all four signatures on the back, though just barely from one of the signatures. This should be a good test because nobody is gonna hold a pen in one spot for one second when writing their signature. Though some might push a little hard.

As for correct thickness of the money orders, I should soon be receiving several receipts that were torn off from actual money orders of the time.

[David Von Pein]

Sandy,

Re: your last "bleed-thru" post....

OK, thanks for the info.

[Doug Buitenbos]

But at the moment I don't think that is what happened, because it appears to me that the money order was actually made on regular paper, not the real card stock. Because the ink has bled through all over the place. Why anybody would fabricate a money order on regular paper, I have no way of knowing. And it makes no sense to me. But that's what appears to have happened. I have a hard time believing that the bleed-thru that we see is actually due to the MO getting wet, as Lance notes has been suggested.

Actually, I can think of one reason why regular paper might be used. If the intention was to merely provide photographs to the authorities, not a real money order, using a photocopier to make the MO could be handy. It could be retouched and then photocopied again, and repeated if necessary. When finished, a photo is given to the WC.

If this were the case, one would have to explain how it was that somebody actually held and carried the MO from Alexandria, or wherever it was the MO came from. I don't know the details enough to determine if that was feasible.

This scenario requires that a photocopy machine would be able to reproduce bleed-through without also reproducing any evidence of touch-ups. Meanwhile, capillary action is a common phenomenon; card stock is permeable and fibrous; inks have many different levels of viscosity and density, and adding water changes their viscosity and density. I, for one, find the latter explanation more believable than the former.

[Sandy Larsen]

But at the moment I don't think that is what happened, because it appears to me that the money order was actually made on regular paper, not the real card stock. Because the ink has bled through all over the place. Why anybody would fabricate a money order on regular paper, I have no way of knowing. And it makes no sense to me. But that's what appears to have happened. I have a hard time believing that the bleed-thru that we see is actually due to the MO getting wet, as Lance notes has been suggested.

Actually, I can think of one reason why regular paper might be used. If the intention was to merely provide photographs to the authorities, not a real money order, using a photocopier to make the MO could be handy. It could be retouched and then photocopied again, and repeated if necessary. When finished, a photo is given to the WC.

If this were the case, one would have to explain how it was that somebody actually held and carried the MO from Alexandria, or wherever it was the MO came from. I don't know the details enough to determine if that was feasible.

This scenario requires that a photocopy machine would be able to reproduce bleed-through without also reproducing any evidence of touch-ups. Meanwhile, capillary action is a common phenomenon; card stock is permeable and fibrous; inks have many different levels of viscosity and density, and adding water changes their viscosity and density. I, for one, find the latter explanation more believable than the former.

I was thinking that the photocopy method would allow the handwriting forger to perfect Oswald's handwriting, and that everything else would be added last (after photocopying). But I just checked and even the Oswald handwriting bleeds through.

So I'm stumped.

The reason the bleed-through bothers me is that almost all the inks bled through, not just one or two. And my experience writing on various papers as a young person -- which was considerable -- tells me that the card stock would not bleed very easily. On the other hand, my experience was in the early seventies, not the early sixties. Perhaps there was significant change with inks or card stock between those two periods. (That's a little hard to accept because virtually nothing has changed since the early seventies and now. I still buy the same types of paper and card stock, and the same magic markers, Sharpie.)

Here's another possibility. The photocopy method was used. But the reason for doing so wasn't to re-copy and perfect the handwriting. The purpose was to allow numerous takes at creating the money order. So if the handwriting wasn't quite right, merely make another photocopy and try again. Once satisfied, apply the stamps.

Like you, I prefer the other explanation. But the bleed-through really bothers me. I hope that my tests on true card stock shows a lot of bleed-through... that would simplify things for me.

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy,

I have not been on here much of late since I am working on a review of Talbot.

But I wish to congratulate you on your really good work on this issue.

John Armstrong's (pretty much) definitive work on this will be online soon. It will incorporate much of this discussion and use two interviews with bank supervisors. That, combined with your archival work will be quite compelling.