David Von Pein

You're wrong, Scott. The regulations you cited are for a totally different type of money order, called a "Disbursement Postal Money Order". That's not the same thing as a regular M.O. that Oswald purchased. More.... HENRY SIENZANT SAID: David, Not sure if you caught this, but Sandy Larsen is confusing P.O. DISBURSEMENT money orders with P.O. CONSUMER money orders (like the one Oswald purchased). He says "Here's the proof", then cites something that doesn't apply to Oswald's money order whatsoever: Sandy wrote: "From the Code of Federal Regulations, 39 CFR 762.29c .... "Endorsement of disbursement postal money orders drawn in favor of financial organizations: All Disbursement Postal Money Orders drawn in favor of financial organizations, for credit to the accounts of persons designating payment so to be made, shall be endorsed in the name of the financial organization as payee in the usual manner." [End Quote.] A disbursement money order is one the Post Office issues to pay its own bills... they disburse the money to various contractors who do repairs, or those who they buy stuff from. See the prior page, section 762.13: "Disbursement Postal Money Orders are issued solely by Postal data centers and solely for the purpose of paying Postal Service obligations." Also see that page, section 762.11: "Disbursement Postal Money Orders, unlike other postal money orders, bear on their face the phrase, "This special money order is drawn by the postal service to pay one of its own obligations"." And see page 211, section 762.11(a): "Disbursement Postal Money Orders have words of negotiability -- "Pay to the Order of" -- printed on their face, while other postal money orders simply bear the words "Pay to" on their face." Oswald's money order was clearly NOT a disbursement money order. Oswald's money order bears the words "pay to", so it was NOT a disbursement money order. As always, there's sleight of hand when conspiracy theorists try to present evidence. They claim it's one thing, but it's another thing entirely. Either they don't know the difference, or they know the difference and are trying to pull a fast one. Count your fingers when discussing the JFK assassination with conspiracy theorists. Larsen also cites this website: FRB Procedures for Processing Postal Money Orders: http://tfm.fiscal.treasury.gov/v2/p4/c700.html But nowhere in there that I can find does it say the bank must affix its stamp to the money order. These are also the current rules, and he presents no evidence all this applied in 1963 (checks now have a number of safeguards to prevent forgery, and no doubt Postal Money Orders have improved & the processing may have changed in various ways in the intervening 52 years as well). DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Thanks, Hank. Excellent work on noting the difference between "Disbursement Postal Money Orders" and the type of ordinary money orders that consumers purchase at post offices. I'm glad you scrolled back one page in those Postal Regulations, Hank, because apparently nobody else did -- and that includes me. And I'm ashamed to admit that I didn't scroll back to that page you discovered. Because by doing so, you have totally defeated Sandy Larsen's "proof" regarding this topic. Plus, let me add one more section of Postal Regulation 762.11 that you didn't mention in your post, Hank.... 762.11© --- "The amounts of Disbursement Postal Money Orders are printed in words as well as numbers, while the amounts of postal money orders available at post offices are printed in numbers only." As we can see, the Oswald/Hidell money order has the amount ($21.45) printed only in numbers, not in words: So, I guess I was on the right track when I said this to Sandy Larsen last month: "I'm not sure that the information in "Paragraph C" of those money order regulations really means what you think it means. The word "drawn" has me confused. The Hidell money order was "drawn" in favor of Klein's Sporting Goods, was it not? It wasn't "drawn" "in favor of [a] financial organization". And Paragraph C says that, in effect, the financial organization is the "payee". Wouldn't that mean the name of the financial institution would also be on the "PAY TO" line on the front of the money order too?" -- DVP; 11/12/2015 SANDY LARSEN SAID: Since 1987, postal money orders have, by law, required bank endorsements. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: 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 Federal Reserve Bank. 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? Also see THIS POST by Tom Scully. MORE: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html

What a nice convenient blanket excuse you've got there. Aren't you glad you can always fall back on that lame excuse, Scott? Lucky you.

Who's Dav?

Well then, Scott, what's the point of even stamping ANYTHING on any check or money order? If EVERYTHING can possibly be faked (like rubber stamps and File Locator Numbers and all the things that were stamped on the front of the M.O. by the Dallas Post Office on 3/12/63), then it can never be proven that ANY check or money order that has ever been processed by any bank in the world is legit. Right? So, I'll ask again --- at what point do the LEGITIMATE LOOKING THINGS on the document make you want to stop pretending everything's been put there by conspirators?

EVIL FBI CONSPIRATOR -- "Hey, Bill [Waldman], can I borrow that Klein's rubber stamp that's on your desk? I need it so I can put a fake Klein's endorsement on this fake blank money order that another evil FBI conspirator swiped from the post office a couple of hours ago." KLEIN'S VICE PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. WALDMAN -- "Yeah, sure. Anything I can do to help J. Edgar. Here you go." FBI CONSPIRATOR -- "Thanks, Bill. I'll give it back to you in a few minutes, after I get through faking Oswald's handwriting and the post office markings and the File Locator Number and the punch holes that I've got to fake so that they line up perfectly with the phony $21.45 numerals that I'm faking on the money order too. So this might take a little while after all." BILL WALDMAN -- "No problem. I never saw a thing. And don't forget about the massive amount of fakery you FBI guys need to do with the nonexistent documents that you're going to say you discovered in our Klein's files tonight too -- e.g., the Waldman No. 7 invoice and the Hidell order form and envelope. So you guys have got a lot of faking to do tonight. If you need me, I'll be in my office practicing the tissue of lies that I'll be needing to tell the Warren Commission in a few months. See ya."

Absolute nonsense, Scott. There are multiple other explanations without having to constantly resort to "forgery". Question for you, Scott.... How did the Klein's "Pay To The Order" stamp get on the back of the Hidell money order if that money order was never handled by anyone at Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago? Do you think the Klein's stamp is a "forgery" too? Even though Bill Waldman testified that the stamp on the M.O. is "identical to our endorsement". And what about Oswald's handwriting? Should I believe that LHO's writing on the M.O. is a "forgery" too? Even though handwring specialist Alwyn Cole told the Warren Commission this: "It is my conclusion that the handwriting on this money order is in the hand of the person who executed the standard writing [i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald]." How many things that appear to be kosher does it take to make an item cross over into the category of "Real and Legitimate"? Or is that a stupid question to ask a conspiracy believer?

It's quite possible that Oswald went to the post office on March 12th BEFORE he ever went to work at Jaggars that day. That's the most likely answer, IMO. And Gary Mack, five years ago, hinted at that possibility too.... Subject: RE: Buying the Money Order Date: 3/12/2011 11:01:42 AM Eastern Standard Time From: Gary Mack To: David Von Pein Dave, Oswald could have left JCS [Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall] at any time between 8am and 10:30 IF there was no work for him to do. Oswald was given simple tasks as they came in, so if no orders were waiting, all he could do was sit and wait.....and get paid for doing so. I assume he'd have to check with his supervisor about taking a few minutes to go to the post office, but his time card certainly does not confirm that he was on the job every single minute. It merely shows that he was at the office and "on the clock" all day. And maybe, just maybe, he went over there on JCS business? Or perhaps a co-worker — his supervisor? — also needed something from the PO so Oswald went and took advantage of the opportunity? In short, there are many reasons Oswald's PO visit was entirely legitimate. It would not surprise me to learn that the Main Post Office opened at 7am, but I don't know that to be the case. I'd have to check the 1963 directories, but I sort of remember doing that years ago. Anyway, I can take a look when I get back to the office on Monday. Gary ------------------------------------------------ Subject: Main Post Office hours Date: 3/17/2011 5:28:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Gary Mack To: David Von Pein Hi Dave, None of the directories at the Museum show the hours at the main post office in Dallas in 1963. However, the USPS online search service shows the main distribution center today opens at 7am. But that building wasn’t there in 1963. The main post office, and presumably the distribution center, was at 400 N. Ervay in 1963 and it would likely have had the early business hours. The Ervay PO is the one that was just a few blocks from J-C-S which was located at 522 Browder. According to Google maps, the two are only 8 blocks, or ½ mile, apart. Oswald could have walked or run, or probably ridden the bus, since Ervay was a main north-south street. For that matter, he could have bummed a ride from a co-worker. In short, I don’t see anything that prevents Oswald from getting to the post office, then buying and sending his money order to Klein’s. As to why the envelope is postmarked in a different zone [it probably wasn't, as discussed here], I have no clue, but there’s no evidence such a practice was out of the ordinary. Gary http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1081.html

What difference does it really make, Jon? Even if Lance has no connection to the law profession whatsoever, every single thing he said in his last post still makes perfect (logical) sense. (At least to me it does.) As for the "Zone 12" red herring.... Even if the "12" on CE773 (the envelope used by Oswald to mail his rifle order to Klein's) is a Dallas postal zone code -- and I'll admit that it could conceivably be a zone code (although as I demonstrate HERE, there's a very good chance that the "12" does not represent "Zone 12" in Dallas, Texas) -- why on Earth would that have to mean that the person who dropped that piece of mail in a mailbox must have mailed it inside "Zone 12" in Dallas? Why couldn't an alternate possibility be that Oswald mailed it at the Main Post Office in Dallas and then the letter was moved by the Dallas Post Office employees to "Zone 12" for processing, and then the postmark was stamped on the envelope (after the mailman moved it to "Zone 12")? Why is that possibility not even considered to be remotely plausible by JFK conspiracy theorists? ~shrug~

In 2003, Ruth Paine talks briefly about the accusation that she is a wicked, evil, patsy-framing CIA operative.... http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kdfw/projects/JFKvideo/video/jfk001.html

Richard, I don't think it's a "20". Part of what you think might be a "20" is really an "X" where Oswald has put an X in the box reserved for "Money Order". Don't you think?

Bob, That's a good point you made about the $19.95 entry on Oswald's order form. I hadn't really thought about it before, but the box for that entry does say "ENCLOSED IS". It's not a box for "ITEM PRICE". And Oswald enclosed $21.45, not just $19.95. So I wonder why he wrote $19.95 in there? And since CTers think Oswald's writing was faked on that order form, the CTers I guess would need to ask, Why would the plotters write $19.95 in there, when "they" knew they were going to fake a money order for $21.45? ~shrug time~ There is some additional writing of some kind right next to Oswald's $19.95. I can't make out what that says. Perhaps he wrote in "+ $1.50" to account for the S&H. ~another shrug~ I can't find any information in the WC volumes about what is written next to the $19.95. There's nothing about it in the testimony of either William Waldman or James Cadigan.

David J., Where are you seeing NINE items for $21.45 in Waldman No. 10? I sure don't see nine such items.

Absolutely. Oswald killed Kennedy. And Tippit too. And he shot at Walker too. Without doubt---IMO. I think, Jon, that if you examine just Oswald's own actions on the dates of Nov. 21 and Nov. 22, without even venturing into the area of the "physical evidence" or the eyewitnesses, a good case can be made for Oswald's guilt in both the JFK and Tippit murders. And when you then ADD IN all the physical evidence (plus the eyewitnesses on both Elm Street and 10th Street), a definite pattern emerges quite clearly. You can speculate that all of that physical evidence was fake or forged to frame LHO, but how can you fake someone's own actions and movements? Oswald, in essence, signed his name to the murders of Kennedy and Tippit by acting so incredibly guilty. And we don't need ANY "authorities" (FBI, DPD, WC, etc.) to know without a doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald was acting guilty on 11/22/63. Don't you agree with that last sentence, Jon? http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com

The original Klein's microfilm, after being photographed by the authorities, could very well have been returned to Klein's. It probably contained a lot of other information about the various orders Klein's had processed at the same time they processed Oswald's rifle order, and therefore the whole microfilm was likely returned to the possession of its owner--Klein's Sporting Goods. It had served its purpose. The FBI and/or Warren Commission had taken photos of all documents that were on the microfilm which pertained to Oswald and the JFK case. So what purpose would be served by retaining the entire roll of microfilm? Also.... How do we really KNOW for a fact that these "missing" items are truly MISSING from the National Archives? We all know it's like pulling teeth from a grizzly bear to get permission to see any of the "original" items that are in the National Archives. So I'm just wondering if (just perhaps) some of those "missing" items (like the original money order and the stub) could still be buried somewhere in one of the N.A. buildings someplace (or elsewhere). How can we KNOW for sure they're really missing? ~shrug~

Yeah. I should be locked up for life for the dastardly crime of voluntarily posting a lot of comments written by CTers on a site run by an LNer, thereby providing an additional Internet location where many many conspiracy arguments can now be viewed. (And providing links to the original full discussions, if anyone wants to view them.) Yes, I get the "last word" in those arguments after I transfer the portions of the arguments that I have been involved in (which is the only part of the discussions I have any interest in archiving on my website). But since I'm an LNer who thinks all conspiracy theories are bunk, what in the heck would you expect, Jimmy? It's my site. Get real. I should be getting an "Attaboy!" from CTers for voluntarily posting on my site hundreds of different arguments presented by the "other side" (which I certainly don't have to do). Instead, I'm treated like a dirty thief who robs people blind and skips town with everybody's money and jewelry. Geez Louise. Ridiculous.

Yep. I was right. It was silly.

Wrong again. If the person I'm quoting has decided to remain anonymous on the Internet (by using an obvious fake name or just a series of numbers or letters as their username), then I will identify that person on my site as simply "A Conspiracy Theorist" (or "CTer"). But I'm not "disguising" them. They've already disguised themselves by using an alias. I await your next silly and childish complaint.

How would you know all that, Jimmy? You hardly ever go to my site. Right? "​The idea that I am familiar with Davey's site is loony tunes. I have been there maybe four times since its [sic] been up." -- J. DiEugenio

Neither thing you mentioned indicates "conspiracy" in the slightest way, of course. Only rabid Internet CTers believe such a goofy thing. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html#LHO-And-The-Other-Job

Smart lady. She's right. dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/ruth-paine.html

Why are you telling the blatant falsehood about the stuff on my site being "imaginary conversations"? That's an outright falsehood. Please stop saying such crap. OK? There's nothing "imaginary" about a single conversation I have archived at my site.

Curry talks about the "order letter" at 26:50....

This picture of the Klein's order form is not the one Oswald used. This one was created by PBS-TV in 1993. More here.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-794.html

I'll let the Colonel himself do the talking.... Coincidentally, with a "JFK" connection (sort of)....the first "What's My Line?" aired after the assassination; but it's not a live show; it was pre-recorded in early November '63.... http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/04/game-shows-with-colonel-sanders.html

No, it's just that David W. Belin and Wesley J. Liebeler had the common sense (and rational way of thinking about the evidence) that people like James DiEugenio and John Armstrong sorely lack. I.E., Belin and Liebeler knew that there wasn't even the SLIGHTEST chance that the paper trail for Oswald's rifle purchase had been faked or artificially manufactured by a band of brain-dead conspirators. How did they know this for certain? Because of the many things that prove the paper trail was legitimate and genuine. Such as: Oswald's verified writing on various pieces of that paper trail (including the money order and the CE773 order form). Plus, the Klein's "Pay To The Order" stamp on the back of the money order. Plus Waldman Exhibit No. 7. Plus the fact that Belin and Liebeler knew for a fact that the money order had been located in just exactly the place where it should have been found if it had been processed properly--in Alexandria. Therefore, why would David Belin and Wesley Liebeler (or the WC) have felt there was any NEED to jump through the ridiculous hoops that DiEugenio is suggesting those men *should* have definitely jumped through? Answer -- There was no need for such hoop-jumping, because of all the things that just SCREAMED out Lee Harvey Oswald purchased this rifle from Klein's!