Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sandy Larsen

Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

Recommended Posts

"The money order appears to have been printed on regular paper, not card stock."

Is that factual or not?

No. Of course it's not "factual". You MUST be kidding. It's merely speculation and guesswork.

And based on what we have since learned by looking at Cadigan Exhibit 11, your quote above, concerning what the money order "appears" to be made out of, is not only NOT "factual" at all --- it's 100% dead wrong.

FACTUAL:

adj.

1. Of the nature of fact; real.

2. Of or containing facts.

adj.

1. of or pertaining to facts.

2. based on facts.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/factual

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The money order appears to have been printed on regular paper, not card stock."

Is that factual or not?

No. Of course it's not "factual". You MUST be kidding. It's merely speculation and guesswork.

And based on what we have since learned by looking at Cadigan Exhibit 11, your quote above, concerning what the money order "appears" to be made out of, is not only NOT "factual" at all --- it's 100% dead wrong.

FACTUAL:

adj.

1. Of the nature of fact; real.

2. Of or containing facts.

adj.

1. of or pertaining to facts.

2. based on facts.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/factual

David,

I think Sandy's talking about his proper use of the word "appears" in that sentence.

Which gave him a built-in "out" he could use, if necessary.

--Tommy :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know, Tommy. But even with the word "appears" in the sentence, I would still argue that the word "factual" does not apply to such a speculative sentence.

FACTUAL signifies PROOF.

"APPEARS" signifies GUESSWORK/CONJECTURE.

(IMHO.)

(YMMV.)

Member FDIC.

May contain peanuts.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The money order appears to have been printed on regular paper, not card stock."

Is that factual or not?

No. Of course it's not "factual". You MUST be kidding. It's merely speculation and guesswork.

And based on what we have since learned by looking at Cadigan Exhibit 11, your quote above, concerning what the money order "appears" to be made out of, is not only NOT "factual" at all --- it's 100% dead wrong.

FACTUAL:

adj.

1. Of the nature of fact; real.

2. Of or containing facts.

adj.

1. of or pertaining to facts.

2. based on facts.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/factual

David,

I think Sandy's talking about his proper use of the word "appears" in that sentence.

Which gave him a built-in "out" he could use, if necessary.

--Tommy :sun

Thanks for explaining that to David. But I resent your insinuation that I used the word "appear" as a way "out" if necessary. I used the word to point out that I never said that the money order was paper and not card stock. Only that it appeared to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The money order appears to have been printed on regular paper, not card stock."

Is that factual or not?

No. Of course it's not "factual". You MUST be kidding. It's merely speculation and guesswork.

And based on what we have since learned by looking at Cadigan Exhibit 11, your quote above, concerning what the money order "appears" to be made out of, is not only NOT "factual" at all --- it's 100% dead wrong.

FACTUAL:

adj.

1. Of the nature of fact; real.

2. Of or containing facts.

adj.

1. of or pertaining to facts.

2. based on facts.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/factual

David,

I think Sandy's talking about his proper use of the word "appears" in that sentence.

Which gave him a built-in "out" he could use, if necessary.

--Tommy :sun

Thanks for explaining that to David. But I resent your insinuation that I used the word "appear" as a way "out" if necessary. I used the word to point out that I never said that the money order was paper and not card stock. Only that it appeared to be.

Sandy,

Sorry to have "impugned" your character like that, but I actually admire you for having used the word "appears." Why? Because all to many CTers would have said "is clearly" or "is obviously" in that situation, which would have made it much more difficult for them to concede defeat gracefully, as you apparently have, so they never do, you know, ... concede defeat.

I realize that it is a fact that the money order appeared to you to be made from paper, not card stock, because the ink seemed to you to have bled through it. But it hadn't. And it wasn't.

Are you convinced now that the money order was made from card stock? And are you convinced now that whatever it was that the fingerprint experts did to the money order made it look like the ink had bled through it?

(OMG, How do we know the bad guys aren't pulling our legs on that?)

Do you still think the card stock money order was forged / manufactured / altered by the bad guys?

What about all those numbers and stamps and things on it? Don't they look ... suspicious?

And the legal / financial procedures and requirements at the time?

And the signature? Was it ... forged?

Etc, etc.

Where do we go with it now, Sandy?

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The money order appears to have been printed on regular paper, not card stock."

Is that factual or not?

No. Of course it's not "factual". You MUST be kidding. It's merely speculation and guesswork.

And based on what we have since learned by looking at Cadigan Exhibit 11, your quote above, concerning what the money order "appears" to be made out of, is not only NOT "factual" at all --- it's 100% dead wrong.

FACTUAL:

adj.

1. Of the nature of fact; real.

2. Of or containing facts.

adj.

1. of or pertaining to facts.

2. based on facts.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/factual

David,

I think Sandy's talking about his proper use of the word "appears" in that sentence.

Which gave him a built-in "out" he could use, if necessary.

--Tommy :sun

Thanks for explaining that to David. But I resent your insinuation that I used the word "appear" as a way "out" if necessary. I used the word to point out that I never said that the money order was paper and not card stock. Only that it appeared to be.

Sandy,

Sorry to have "impugned" your character like that, but I actually admire you for having used the word "appears" originally, because all to many CTers wouldn't have qualified it like that, but would have said "is clearly" or "is obviously" in that situation, which would have made it more difficult for them to concede defeat gracefully.

So it is a fact that the money order appeared to you to be made from paper, not card stock. Because the ink seemed to you to have bled through it. But it hadn't. And it wasn't.

Are you convinced now that the money order was made from card stock? And are you convinced now that whatever it was that the fingerprint experts did to it, what they did do happened to only make it look like the ink had bled through the paper / card stock?

Do you still think the card stock money order was forged / manufactured / altered by the bad guys?

Where do we go next with this?

--Tommy :sun

Tommy,

Thank you for your thoughtful and kind reply.

I do indeed consider the Hidell money order to be a genuine postal money order made of card stock. There is no reason to believe otherwise.

As for whether or not the money order was actually cashed, the jury is still out on that IMO. It depends on how common it was at the time for a bank not t o have stamped a postal money order. If it was common, then we learn nothing from the lack of a bank stamp. If it was very uncommon, then that would lead me to believe the money order might have been forged. But not necessarily so, as should be obvious.

As it now stands, there currently does seem to be a smoking gun with regard to the gun purchase. And that is the fact that the DPD was giving out conflicting information on the order after it was found. The FBI informed the DPD that they had the order in hand and that it was in Oswald's handwriting, and other information gained from the order. But for some reason they gave the DPD the wrong price, $12.78 instead of $21.45. Even though the FBI had the price right in front of them, on the order itself! It could be argued that a mistake had merely occurred in relaying the price, if it weren't for the fact that Klein's was indeed advertising the rifle at the $12.78 price... for the rifle without a scope.

DVP has come up with a possible explanation or two. I don't buy them. Maybe someone will come up with an explanation that is more likely to have occurred.

I won't say this proves the gun purchase never occurred as reported. But it certainly is suspicious. This coupled with other rifle-purchase difficulties keeps me suspecting (for now) that it was part of a setup.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Isn't the original money order in the National Archives?

Wouldn't that save a lot of trouble and speculation if that was examined?

If the original money order is in the archives and it's on card stock and it's got bleed-thru, where's that leave us?

Hank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Postal money orders required bank endorsement stamps in 1963.

I wish to address a document brought up earlier by Lance Payette in this thread. The document, a "circular" issued by a Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) in 1960, states that postal money orders are to be treated by FRBs as "cash items." "Cash item" simply means that the FRB gives banks instant credit for the item -- there is no waiting period for the item to clear. Even checks are usually treated by banks as cash items. (Or so I've read.)

The circular, which was in effect in 1963, also states that cash items presented to an FRB for collection are required to have bank endorsement stamps.

This seemingly would mean, therefore, that postal money orders required bank stamps. However, as Lance pointed out, there is a clause in the circular stating that there is an agreement between the Postmaster General and Federal Reserve Banks, and that the agreement may have removed the bank endorsement requirement for postal money orders. (The only known evidence for this possibility being the Hidell money order.) I will hereafter refer to this agreement as "The Agreement."

It was therefore important to find The Agreement. Lance stated that he couldn't find it. Neither could I.

HOWEVER...

It occurred to me that there had to have been a way for banks to be informed of exactly what the FRB requirements were. This got me to searching the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) for bank endorsement regulations. I found documents dated 1909, 1925, 1987, and 2001 stating that bank endorsements were required specifically on postal money orders. But the documents I found closer to the 1960s suffered the same problem as the circular that I'm writing about now. They state that postal money orders are treated as cash items, and that cash items require bank endorsements. But they leave open the possibility of The Agreement nullifying the bank endorsement requirement on postal money orders.

THEN...

Today I found something interesting. I found another 1960s era FRB circular which has an appendix specifically for postal money orders. Upon reading it, I realized that I had found The Agreement! Not necessarily the full agreement, but the parts of the agreement that bankers needed to be aware of when presenting checks to an FRB.

Suddenly everything became clear. The regulations I had been seeking had been in front of me the whole time! THE CIRCULARS! The circulars are what are used to inform banks what FRB requirements are! Not the CFR. Not the UCC. The circulars!

Then I felt stupid for not realizing this earlier.

I checked the FRB website to confirm my conclusion. On this page

https://www.frbservices.org/regulations/operating_circulars.html

it is stated

"Federal Reserve Financial Services are governed by the terms and conditions that are set forth in the following operating circulars."

So, when a bank wants to know what the FRB requirements are, they look them up in the circulars. Duh!

SOOOOO...

How do we know whether or not postal money orders require bank stamps? We just read the appropriate circular. And, if we want to know if The Agreement nullifies the bank stamp requirement, we look for THAT in the circular.

Now, recall the 1960s era circular I found with the appendix containing (the pertinent part of) The Agreement. It is Appendix B in this 1969 circular:

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1969_6370.pdf

The regulations given for postal money orders in this circular are pretty much the same as the regulations given in the 1960 circular that was in effect in 1963. But this one has The Agreement in Appendix B. Quoting from this document:

Items which will be handled as cash items

3. Except as otherwise provided by this operating circular, the

following items may be sent to this Bank for handling as cash items

in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Regulation J, of

this operating circular, and of our time schedules:

( a ) Checks drawn upon any bank included in the current “Federal

Reserve Par List,” which indicates the banks upon which checks are

collectible at par through the Federal Reserve Banks and is furnished

from time to time and supplemented each month to show changes sub­

sequent to the last complete list.

( b ) Government checks, postal money orders, and food stamp cou­

pons.*

( c ) Such other demand items, collectible at par in funds accept­

able to the Federal Reserve Bank of the District3 in which such items

are payable, as we may be willing to accept as cash items.

*Provisions [i.e. The Agreement] governing the collection of the foregoing

cash items are contained in Appendix A, Appendix B, and Appendix C,

respectively, of this operating circular.

o

o

o

APPENDIX B

POSTAL MONEY ORDERS

1. Postal money orders (United States postal money orders;

United States international postal money orders; domestic-inter­

national postal money orders) will be handled by us as cash items in

accordance with an agreement made by the Postmaster General, in

behalf of the United States, and by the Federal Reserve Banks as

depositaries and fiscal agents of the United States pursuant to authori­

zation of the Secretary of the Treasury. With respect to matters no*t

covered by that agreement, the terms and conditions of Regulation J

applicable to cash items, of this operating circular, and of our time

schedules shall be applicable to all such postal money orders.

2. We will give immediate credit for postal money orders received

from a sender maintaining or using an account with us as provided

in our time schedules. Simultaneously with such credit, we will debit

the amount of such money orders against the general account of the

Treasurer of the United States under such symbol numbers as may

be assigned by the Treasurer of the United States; and such credit

to the account of the sender shall then become final as between us and

the sender.

3. The agreement between the Postmaster General and the Federal

Reserve Banks provides, in effect, that no claim for refund or other­

wise with respect to any postal money order debited against the gen­

eral account of the Treasurer of the United States and delivered to

the representative of the Post Office Department as provided in said

agreement (other than a claim based upon the negligence of a Federal

Reserve Bank) shall be made against or through any Federal Reserve

Bank; that, if the Post Office Department makes any such claim with

respect to any such money order, such money order will not be re­

turned or sent to a Federal Reserve Bank, but the Post Office Depart­

ment will deal directly with the bank or the party against which such

claim is made; and that the Federal Reserve Banks will assist the

Post Office Department in asserting such claim, including making

their records and any relevant evidence in their possession available

to the Post Office Department. Section 210.12 of Regulation J, relat­

ing to the return of cash items by the paying banks, is not applicable to

postal money orders.

There is nothing in The Agreement about bank endorsements. But in the body of the circular is this clause:

Endorsements

15. All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank

direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to, or

to the order of, the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed

to, or to the order of, any bank, banker, or trust company, or en­

dorsed with equivalent words or abbreviations thereof. The endorse­

ment of the sender should be dated and should show the A.B.A. transit

number of the sender, if any, in prominent type on both sides of the

endorsement.

So we see that bank endorsements were required on postal money orders. (No big surprise.)

But remember, these are 1969 regulations, not the 1960 ones that were in effect in 1963. The reason I quote them here is to reveal The Agreement, and also to show that the regulations were essentially the same in 1969 as they were in 1960 (and 1963).

But why wasn't The Agreement printed in the 1960 circular as it was in 1969? As it turns out, IT WAS! It just wasn't set apart in its own appendix.

Now I will quote from the 1960 circular:

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1960_04928.pdf

Items which will be accepted as cash items

1. The following will be accepted for collection as cash items:

(1) Checks drawn on banks or banking institutions (including private

bankers) located in any Federal Reserve District which are collectible

at par in funds acceptable to the collecting Federal Reserve Bank. The

“ Federal Reserve Par List,” indicating the banks upon which checks will

be received by Federal Reserve Banks for collection and credit, is fur­

nished from time to time and a supplement is furnished each month

showing changes subsequent to the last complete list. This list is subject

to change without notice and the right is reserved to return without

presentment any items drawn on banks which may have withdrawn or

may have been removed from the list or may have been reported elosed.

(2) Government checks drawn on the Treasurer of the United States.

(3) Postal money orders (United States postal money orders; United

States international postal money orders; and domestic-international

postal money orders).

(4) Such other items, collectible at par in funds acceptable to the

Federal Reserve Bank of the District in which such items are payable, as

we may be willing to accept as cash items.

o

o

o

Postal money orders

11. Postal money orders will be handled in accordance with

an agreement made by the Postmaster General, in behalf of the

United States, and the Federal Reserve Banks as depositaries and

fiscal agents of the United States pursuant to authorization of the

Secretary of the Treasury; and with respect to matters not covered

by such agreement, the provisions of Regulation J, this circular and

our time schedules shall be deemed applicable to all postal money

orders. Immediate credit will be given to member banks and non­

member clearing banks for postal money orders as provided in our

time schedules and simultaneously with such credit we will debit the

amount of such money orders against the general account of the Treas­

urer of the United States under such symbol numbers as may be

assigned by the Treasurer of the United States. Said agreement fur­

ther provides in effect that no claim for refund or otherwise with

respect to any money order debited against the general account of

the Treasurer of the United States and delivered to the representa­

tive of the Post Office Department as provided in said agreement

(other than a claim based on the negligence of a Federal Reserve

Bank) will be made against or through any Federal Reserve Bank;

that if the Post Office Department makes any such claim with respect

to any such money order, such money order will not be returned or

sent to a Federal Reserve Bank, but the Post Office Department will

deal directly with the bank or the party against which such claim is

made; and that the Federal Reserve Banks will assist the Post Office

Department in making such claim, including making their records

and any relevant evidence in their possession available to the Post

Office Department

o

o

o

Endorsements

13. All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank

direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the

order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the

order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar

endorsement. Cash items will be accepted by us, and by other Federal

Reserve Banks, only upon the understanding and condition that all

prior endorsements are guaranteed by the sending bank. There should

be incorporated in the endorsement of the sending bank the phrase,

“ All prior endorsements guaranteed.” The act of sending or deliver­ing a

cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however,

be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty of all prior

endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is

incorporated in the sending bank’s endorsement. The endorsement of

the sending bank should be dated and should show the American

Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent

type on both sides.

As can be seen, The Agreement in this document is located in item #11, as opposed to a separate appendix.

THEREFORE...

Postal money orders required bank endorsement stamps in 1963.

Endorsements

13. All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank

direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the

order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the

order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar

endorsement.

Endorsed to the order of any bank...

The Money Order in question has that...

It reads:

PAY TO THE ORDER OF

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO

50 91144

KLEINS SPORTING GOODS, INC.

​So it appears you proved the money order has the correct stamp, and all is in good order.

Edited by Hank Sienzant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But tell me where in my sentence here that I am stating something that is not factual:

"The money order appears to have been printed on regular paper, not card stock."

Is that factual or not?

No. Of course it's not "factual". You MUST be kidding. It's merely speculation and guesswork.

David,

"On a clear day, the air above us appears to be blue."

Is that statement factual or not?

Am I making a claim that the air is blue?

Is the statement speculation?

Is the statement misleading ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You REALLY can't figure this out, Jim?

I think it's fairly clear that the FBI just simply didn't release the EXACT DOLLAR AMOUNT ($21.45) that appeared on the front of the money order. So the media people were going with the CURRENT Nov. '63 price for the gun (without the scope)--$12.78.

But we know the FBI and Secret Service--on Nov. 23!--had the info regarding the exact dollar amount ($21.45), because CD75 and CD87 that I've linked dozens of times in this thread verify that fact.

So why would you think anything is "magic" or suspicious about this at all? Do you think BOTH of those documents (CD75 & CD87)---which are from TWO different agencies (the FBI and the SS)---are fake documents?

You're right, David, I can't figure out why you're speculating so wildly here.
You want us to believe that the FBI released information about the magic rifle the day after the assassination, including the date of purchase, the vendor, and a handwriting analysis of the alleged orderer, and the fact that the orderer used an alias, but that it then withheld the price of the rifle so that news media all across the country could GUESS what the price might have been. AND you want us to believe that all the different reporters were completely wrong about the price, but came up with the EXCAT SAME INCORRECT PRICE, even though THREE DIFFERENT PRICES were shown just in the three or four little ads you entered into this thread. Not only that, but EVERY SINGLE REPORT I've seen failed to point out that the list price, often presented in the same paragraph as the rest of the information that could only have come from the FBI, was a GUESS, a GUESS made on the basis of multiple prices advertised for the weapon. Despite your speculation, the best reading of this evidence is that the FBI on 11/23 indicated the rifle cost $12.78, just as all those news stories reported so confidently.
Here's on thing that might have happened: Someone other than Dial Ryder put repair tag #18374 with Oswald's name on it on Dial Ryder's workbench in the Irving Sports Shop gun store near Dallas. The repair, according to the tag, was to "drill and tap" and "bore sight" something that belonged to "Oswald." And so someone at the the FBI felt it would be safe to indicate that "Hidell" purchased the rifle from Klein's at the cost without a scope, $12.78. But the Ryder story soon fell apart, and now the FBI had to make the $12.78 price go away. It was easy to make it vanish from FBI internal documents, but removing it from scores of American news reports was simply impossible.
And so the tap dance began. Magic media reports, a magic money order, a magic rifle that fired magic bullets... enough magic to make Harry Potter blush!

Dial Ryder's story didn't break until after the money order was found, as I understand it.

See his testimony. The first time the FBI interviewed him was 11/25/63. Ryder pegs it "as the day of the funeral of President Kennedy".

So you'll need another guess.

Hank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anonymous tipsters play an incredibly important role on 11-22 and 11-23-63 re the rifle.

They are grossly under-appreciated by JFK researchers.

They are co-conspirators who helped greatly to frame Marina's husband.

One can learn a lot from the fact that a tip was called in anonymously.

For example, in the case of the money order, I think we learn from the anonymous tip on the supposed scope mounting at Irving Sports Shop that the FBI wasn't on the same page as the assassination conspirators. The FBI was supposed to have "discovered" that the scope had been mounted there. But their premature announcement, that they had found the order for the rifle and that it showed the price to be $12.78, bungled that plan.

This, among other things, tells me that those in the FBI weren't colluding with the conspirators in the CIA. The cover-up was separate from the assassination plot.

Or, we can learn that Dial Ryder wanted his coattails attached to the Kennedy Assassination as a historic footnotes, and got his 15 minutes of fame and then some. Please tell me the evidence that Ryder himself didn't call in that anonymous tip.

Hank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But tell me where in my sentence here that I am stating something that is not factual:

"The money order appears to have been printed on regular paper, not card stock."

Is that factual or not?

No. Of course it's not "factual". You MUST be kidding. It's merely speculation and guesswork.

David,

"On a clear day, the air above us appears to be blue."

Is that statement factual or not?

Am I making a claim that the air is blue?

Is the statement speculation?

Is the statement misleading ?

The AIR is blue?

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But tell me where in my sentence here that I am stating something that is not factual:

"The money order appears to have been printed on regular paper, not card stock."

Is that factual or not?

No. Of course it's not "factual". You MUST be kidding. It's merely speculation and guesswork.

David,

"On a clear day, the air above us appears to be blue."

Is that statement factual or not?

Am I making a claim that the air is blue?

Is the statement speculation?

Is the statement misleading ?

The AIR is blue?

LOL

No.... the air appears to be blue.

You still can't see how the the word "appear" affects the meaning of a sentence?

You appear to have a reading disorder. But I really think you're just playing dumb. Something you shouldn't do if you want to come across as credible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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." -- John Armstrong

"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?" -- James DiEugenio

In neither case did the person say anything had been proven.

Right on the Armstrong website the following statement is made regarding the bleed-thru:

"NOTE: Serious researchers should be focusing attention on the inked postal stamps that appear on the front of the money order (Dallas, TX, Mar 12, 1963), the inked endorsement stamp (Klein's) and the inked initials and dates that appear on the back of this money order. An explanation is needed as to how ink from the postal stamp and ink from the initials/dates can "bleed" thru to the other side of the money order. Postal money orders were made from card stock similar to an index card or an IBM type punch card--between 90# and 110# paper. This paper stock was crisp, firm, and ink "bleed-thru" to the reverse side was virtually impossible. I don't understand why or how ink "bleed-thru" occurred on CE 788. The original postal money order disappeared long ago, and only FBI photographs of CE 788 remain. Who authorized and/or caused the disappearance of the original money order is unknown. Only black and white photographs remain. This ink "bleed-thru" deserves a valid explanation."

Armstrong said, "This ink 'bleed-thru' deserves a valid explanation." And now we have it.

No claim was made by Armstrong other than the bleed-thru appearing to show that CE 788 was not original card stock.And the claim was factual at the time.

Armstrong obviously didn't research this very well, or else he would have discovered the answer in the Warren Commission testimony, as cited previously here by DVP, wouldn't he?

There's the rub. I see a lot of allusions to Armstrong's research, but if he couldn't even discover why there was bleed through, then that calls into question how great a researcher he really is.

Doesn't it?

Hank

Edited by Hank Sienzant

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...