Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

[Sandy Larsen]

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.

[Jim Hargrove]

On Labor Day weekend prior to the assassination, a fellow calling himself “Lee Oswald” visited the Baycliff, Texas home of Robert McKeown and tried to buy four .300 Savage rifles with scopes, eventually offering to pay the ridiculous price of $10,000, according to McKeown's sworn HSCA testimony. McKeown was currently on probation after a conviction for selling guns to Fidel Castro and his troops. (After the revolution Castro flew to Houston and met personally with McKeown at the airport. Castro tried to convince McKeown to return to Cuba with him and offered him a number of inducements, including a high position in the Cuban government. McKeown turned him down, but the men remained close friends.)

The original plan for the rifle, I'm convinced, was to have it trace back to Fidel Castro's personal friend and gun runner, Robert McKeown. When it became known that the assassination rifle was from Castro's own weapon supplier, Americans could easily be whipped into a frenzy and an invasion of Cuba assured.

McKeown, though, smelled a rat and refused to sell to “Oswald.” Although there was still more than two months until the assassination, the selection of the gun, and its placement into evidence, now had to be improvised, and the sloppiness shows. Compare it to the brilliance of selecting Oswald as the patsy. With his ties to the FBI as a low-level informant, he was a sure bet to force Hoover into immediate cover-up mode. With his ties to American intel, he was a walking dead man the minute JFK was killed.

The rifle though, from the magic money order and the FBI's obvious confusion in the first days after the hit and the magic bullet it allegedly fired, is a real Achilles heel in an otherwise masterful plot.

[Jim Hargrove]

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.

Meant to add this earlier but got sidetracked....

According to The Fourth Decade, July 1997, p. 6, early WC critic Leo Sauvage “asked Dallas Assistant District Attorney Jim Bowie whether a telephone call had led to Oswald's arrest. Bowie told him there was a call from the cashier [Julia Postal], but also that there were 'Half a dozen calls!'”

If that's true, it pretty clear the conspirators were taking no chances that their patsy would escape the police.

[Tom Hume]

Re: Jim Hargrove’s post #287: My hypothesis predicts that most, if not all, of the enigmatic Oswald impersonations were creations of Oswald’s team, “ICO”, and embedded in these enigmas are one or more of “ICO’s” anagram puzzles. “ICO” stands for “Igor”, Case”, and, “Oswald" I will post my brief take on LO’s four .300 Savages on "The Oswald Code" thread in a few minutes.

Tom

Edited December 18, 2015 by Tom Hume

[David Von Pein]

TIM NICKERSON SAID:

The amount of authentication that we have for the money order is vast. It was vast before the issue came to the forefront six or seven weeks ago, and it's even moreso now. The fact that the Armstrongites continue to deny that authenticity just shows how out to lunch that they truly are.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Absolutely correct, Tim.

But even with a "File Locator Number" now identified on the Hidell money order, PLUS Lee Harvey Oswald's handwriting (per many handwriting analysts) being on the same money order, PLUS the Klein's stamp being on that same money order, PLUS the "Mar. 12, 1963" and "$21.45" post office stamps being exactly where they should be on that same money order....the conspiracy crowd still wants more proof to show that the M.O. is a legitimate document.

As far as most conspiracy theorists are concerned, it always seems to be the things that AREN'T there that become more important and valuable than the things that ARE present and accounted for. The bullets in the JFK case are another good example of this mindset possessed by many CTers. Per those conspiracists, it's the bullets that were never found or recovered that somehow become much more important when it comes to solving JFK's murder than the bullets that are in evidence.

Go figure.


ALBERT DOYLE SAID:

Do you understand that the Money Order could be processed, or partly processed, and still be 'handled' through the system in order to frame Oswald?

In other words, it could have a legitimate File Locator stamp and still be planted on Oswald in order to frame him.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I love that constant moving of the goalposts by CTers.

Since it couldn't be more obvious that the Hidell money order now has a proper path to legitimacy (and conspiracy theorists like Albert Doyle know it), we're now treated to more sheer crackpot speculation about how the LEGITIMATE money order (with Oswald's writing on it that was bought and handled by Oswald HIMSELF) was being used to frame Oswald anyway.

The CTer mind is a spinning whirlwind of ever-expanding and forever changing concocted claptrap.

IOW --- Whatever it takes to pretend Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy on 11/22/63, an Internet CTer is ready and eager to do it -- even if the number of goalposts that must be moved reaches triple digits.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12852.msg415163.html#msg415163

[Jim Hargrove]

DONALD DUCK SAID:

These Warren Commission defenders really quack me up. They say an uncashed, undeposited, unendorsed magic money order is proof of uh… uhm… something Really Important. My nephews Huey, Dewey, and Louie know more about this.

HUEY DUCK SAID:

That's right, Uncle Donald. The magic money order was for $21.45, the price of the $19.95 magic rifle with scope from Kleins plus postage. The FBI analyzed the handwriting on the ordering materials and told the Dallas Police it was the handwriting of “Lee Harvey Oswald.” The FBI is Really Famous and they know about everyone's handwriting!

DEWEY DUCK SAID:

Almost as famous as our boss, Walt Disney. On November 23, slightly famous Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry announced the FBI's findings, that the handwriting on the order for a $12.78 rifle with scope was definitely from “Lee Harvey Oswald.” But, hey, wait a minute… wasn't it really a $19.95 rifle?

LOUIE DUCK SAID:

Silly! This was Magic Handwriting, it could move wherever J. Edgar Hoover wanted it to! Mr. Hoover was Really, Really, Famous! Almost as famous as Uncle Donald. And besides, someone said there was a File Locator Number on the Magic Money Order, proving it was as legit as you and Aunt Daisy.

DONALD DUCK SAID:

That proves it then! Extra numbers always mean everything is fine. No one could possibly add more numbers when they're making something up.

JIM HARGROVE SAID:

Man, this so-called rifle evidence is really Ducked Up!

Edited December 19, 2015 by Jim Hargrove

[David Von Pein]

And WHO CARES if the M.O. has Lee's writing all over it? (Means nothing to Jimmy Hargrove.)

And WHO CARES if the M.O. was definitely handled by Klein's (as their stamp proves)? (Means nothing to Jimmy.)

And WHO GIVES A DAMN if there's a FLN on the M.O.? (Means nada to James H.) After all, EVERYTHING can be faked. Right?

And WHO CARES about those CD75 and CD87 documents from the FBI & SS. (They mean less than NOTHING to Jimmy.) After all, everybody was framing LHO in Nov. '63.

As I said.....

Whatever it takes to pretend Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy on 11/22/63, an Internet CTer is ready and eager to do it. And Jim Hargrove proves it with every post he makes.

Edited December 19, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David G. Healy]

And WHO CARES if the M.O. has Lee's writing all over it? (Means nothing to Jimmy Hargrove.)

And WHO CARES if the M.O. was definitely handled by Klein's (as their stamp proves)? (Means nothing to Jimmy.)

And WHO GIVES A DAMN if there's a FLN on the M.O.? (Means nada to James H.) After all, EVERYTHING can be faked. Right?

And WHO CARES about those CD75 and CD87 documents from the FBI & SS. (They mean less than NOTHING to Jimmy.) After all, everybody was framing LHO in Nov. '63.

As I said.....

Whatever it takes to pretend Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy on 11/22/63, an Internet CTer is ready and eager to do it. And Jim Hargrove proves it with every post he makes.

it's way beyond you now... nor can daBug help.

[David Von Pein]

It's way beyond you now... nor can daBug help.

Yeah, that's right, David. It's now in the hands of people who make comments like the ones below....

"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

THE BLEED-THRU PROBLEM EXPLAINED

Is your faith in the Conspiracy Gods shaken by the above information, Mr. Healy? (Not even a tiny little bit?)

Edited December 20, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

"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.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[David Von Pein]

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.

No, it wasn't. Such a claim was never "factual". Are you joking?

Armstrong just never bothered to check out Cadigan No. 11 to do a comparison of the money order photographs. Neither did I. And neither did anybody else (that I know of) until Tim Brennan did such a direct comparison on December 5, 2015.

Do you think ALL rumors and sloppy research are "factual" until proven wrong, Sandy? If so, that's a mighty strange philosophy.

Edited December 20, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Thomas Graves]

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.

No, it wasn't. Such a claim was never "factual". Are you joking?

Armstrong just never bothered to check out Cadigan No. 11 to do a comparison of the money order photographs. Neither did I. And neither did anybody else (that I know of) until Tim Brennan did such a direct comparison on December 5, 2015.

Do you think ALL rumors and sloppy research are "factual" until proven wrong, Sandy? If so, that's a mighty strange philosophy.

DVP,

As you know I'm a JFK conspiracy theorist. But like you, I loathe sloppy research. So thank you (and Lance, too) for pointing out the fallacies and foibles of some of my more "gung ho, over the top" CT colleagues.

I do reserve the right, however, to argue with you from time to time.

LOL

--Tommy

Edited December 20, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

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.

No, it wasn't. Such a claim was never "factual". Are you joking?

Armstrong just never bothered to check out Cadigan No. 11 to do a comparison of the money order photographs. Neither did I. And neither did anybody else (that I know of) until Tim Brennan did such a direct comparison on December 5, 2015.

Do you think ALL rumors and sloppy research are "factual" until proven wrong, Sandy? If so, that's a mighty strange philosophy.

David,

From the very beginning I was saying that the money order appeared to have been printed on regular paper, not card stock. I did tests that seemed to confirm it.

At the same time I was saying that I hoped an innocent explanation could be found so that I wouldn't have to deal with this seemingly inexplicable issue.

So was I telling a lie when I said, "the money order appears to have been printed on regular paper, not card stock?"

No, I wasn't. Because that is the way it appeared. What I said was factual. (For that matter, it is still factual.)

Armstrong also wasn't lying when he said essentially the same thing. He made that especially clear when he said that the bleed-thru needed an explanation.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[David Von Pein]

Armstrong also wasn't lying when he said essentially the same thing. He made that especially clear when he said that the bleed-thru needed an explanation.

I never said Armstrong was "lying". Why did you use that word, Sandy?

Armstrong was just simply wrong. But I never claimed he was lying.

But you, Sandy, were certainly also wrong when you used the word "factual" in this statement a little while ago....

"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."

....because such a "claim" about the bleed-thru topic was most certainly NEVER "factual". It was merely an unsupportable theory and nothing more.

[Sandy Larsen]

Armstrong also wasn't lying when he said essentially the same thing. He made that especially clear when he said that the bleed-thru needed an explanation.

I never said Armstrong was "lying". Why did you use that word, Sandy?

Armstrong was just simply wrong. But I never claimed he was lying.

But you, Sandy, were certainly also wrong when you used the word "factual" in this statement a little while ago....

"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."

....because such a "claim" about the bleed-thru topic was most certainly NEVER "factual". It was merely an unsupportable theory and nothing more.

Okay, I admit I shouldn't have used the word "lie."

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?