Hank Sienzant
-
Posts
127 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Hank Sienzant
-
-
Sorry if this is a stupid question. What does the stamp on the back mean? I try to think of something. Is not the
50 91144
KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.
where the numbers are an account num,er and the name the name of the account? Maybe in being stamped with the words of a disbusement money order it signifies as having reentered the postal system which means as far as the name/account holder is concerned it has been paid?
It may be their bank account number or their Dun & Bradstreet number.
https://fedgov.dnb.com/webform
Both of those are longer now, but in 1963?
Hank
PS: It's not a PO disbursement money order. Those are of a different form and are used to pay the Post Office Department's bills. They are NOT the same as the kind as a consumer can purchase over the counter at a post office. See the info above where DVP quotes the info concerning disbursement money orders (originally provided to DVP by me).
-
Mr. Hank T:
"All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in the two Nov. 22 murders (JFK's and Tippit's) has been faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey."
Can you show me where I ever wrote that sentence?
Apologies, Jim. I understood you didn't write that specifically, but understood you agree with the substance of that claim.
My apologies if I misunderstood your beliefs.
Hank
-
Hank - since you demonstrated that you do not understand what a frame up is, you lost credibility here, at least with me. I don't know if you are a xxxxx, actually don't know what a xxxxx is in this context. But the question is not whether all the evidence used to prove the WC finding against Oswald is planted, but whether any of it is. Once you find that one piece is planted the rest becomes suspect.
Logically banks stamp deposits such as checks and money orders. If you know otherwise please present your evidence and stop with the legal games.
It's not my contention that Money Orders (and especially the one in question) should have a bank stamp.
It's the contention of others here. I'm merely asking them to establish that contention with evidence, rather than assumptions, as you're doing.
Asking me to present my evidence to the contrary is the logical fallacy known as an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
Sorry, that doesn't work.
Hank
-
The Chicago bank could not have transferred (technically, negotiated) the M.O. and gotten paid for the $21.45 (or whatever) it remitted to Klein's without endorsing the money order.
That's a excellent point Jon. From my research on this topic, I actually read what you're saying here. But I didn't recognize the opportunity of arguing this point. A case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
This is not a matter of informed opinion or judgment, like an autopsy report. This is black letter law.
Can anyone document - with verifiable evidence - the claim that the PO Money Order has to be stamped by the local bank on the reverse side of the Money Order?
All I see are allegations this is the case.
Hank
-
20.) All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in the two Nov. 22 murders (JFK's and Tippit's) has been faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey.
Can you explain how Oswald left his wallet at the Tippett murder scene and yet still had it when he was caught at the movie theater? Right there is rock solid evidence of framery in the Tippett case. And the fake money order is rock-solid evidence of framery in the JFK case. It need not be made more difficult than that to see that James is right.
Well, now we're getting far off the subject at hand, of the postal money order and the supposed evidence of fakery.
Is Jim really right when he says: "All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in the two Nov. 22 murders (JFK's and Tippit's) has been faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey."
ALL the physical evidence?
So that means the C2766 rifle was somehow "faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured" to frame Oswald?
And the three shells at the window?
And the paper bag with his prints on it?
And the nearly whole bullet at Parkland?
And the two large fragments found in the limo that point to his weapon?
And the money order?
And the order form?
And the Kleins paperwork?
And the post office form showing Hidell was allowed to receive mail at his PO Box?
And the backyard photos showing him with the rifle in question?
And the autopsy, the autopsy x-rays, the autopsy photos, the Zapruder film, the Altgens photo determined by experts to show Lovelady on the steps, the testimony of a multitude of witnesses, and the body of JFK?
(This is by no means an all-inclusive list, but it's a start on the physical evidence that Jim is alleging is not legitimate).
Hank
-
You also appear to be saying the FRB number is both on the money order in question and not on the money order in question:
ON THE MONEY ORDER:
Proof that postal money orders were processed by Federal Reserve Banks can be seen right on the Hidell MO itself.
Right below the MO's serial number (2,202,130,462) is the following symbol:
15-119
------
000
NOT ON THE MONEY ORDER:
In conclusion, we see that the Hidell money order was indeed intended to be processed by a Federal Reserve Bank.And so it would have had FRB numbers stamped on it had it been processed. It was never processed.
Can you advise?
Hank
I should have said "FRB Marks" instead of "FRB numbers." Thanks for pointing that out.
I haven't spent the time yet to understand what exactly the marks mean. But I know there are marks. And I thought I did see numbers when I took a quick glance at some of my checks. But of course I'll have to look at some 1963 checks to see what the marks were at that time.
Checks won't prove a thing. We're talking about Money Orders. Aren't we?
What's the numbers 138 01597856 at the very top of the Money Order signify?
Hank
-
I'm still just waiting for evidence of this supposed need for a bank stamp on the back of a post office money order.
Surely something that exposes the conspiracy would not be just an assumption on everyone's part, would it?
Evidence?
Anyone?
Hank
Well I have shown, subsequent to your post here, that the MO in question would definitely have been processed by the Federal Reserve Bank. As all MOs still are today. Federal Reserve Banks do use stamps on the backs of financial instruments when they process them. And the wording on the reverse side of the MO refers to the use of bank stamps on the MO.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
But I'll tell you what, Hank... show me a processed postal money order that has no stamps, and I'll consider conceding to your side.
No, Sandy. Now you're asking me to disprove your claims. That's the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.
I would think you'd be able to cite some legitimate processed postal money orders from the 1960's that show bank stamps on the back. That would be some proof.
Also, you could cite the 1963 then-current rules that show bank stamps would be required.
Hank
-
But if it is made with card stock, why is it that the "Mar 12 1963" postal stamp so readily bled through to the back? The fact that it bled though indicates that the MO we see is actually paper stock, not card stock. And this conclusion contradicts the conclusion of the prior paragraph.
Nice point Sandy.More stupidity on the part of your bumbling idiotic patsy framers, right Jimmy? They couldn't even get the right "card stock" to mimic a real U.S. Postal Money Order. What a band of goofs those plotters were.
But thank goodness we've got super sleuths like Armstrong, Josephs, Larsen, and DiEugenio on the scene now to figure all this out. Otherwise, Dulles, Ferrie, Shaw, and the stumblebum who used the wrong paper for CE788 would never have been found out and exposed!
Especially since that stuff would have been available in any half-way decent wholesaler of paper products.
IBM card stock was universal in the 1960s.
Hank
-
In my opinion, the bleed-thru of the "Mar 12 1963" postal stamp is PROOF POSITIVE that the Hidell MO is made of regular (thin) paper, not the card stock that it should have been made of.
Hi Sandy,
Respectfully, in my opinion, it's not proof of that.
Regular paper money orders wouldn't have the keypunch card holes; as they can't feed through the machine readers like the card stock ones. They would serve no purpose on thin paper.
Have you ever seen one of those suckers in action? Have you ever fed a stack of punched cards through a machine reader?
Since the PO MO in question has the keypunch card holes - meant to be fed through, and read by machine readers - then the PO MO in question must be card stock.
As far as I can see. But of course, I couldn't see the evidence that PO MO's need to be stamped by a bank, either.
Does anyone have any evidence that's anything more than an assumption?
Hank
Team "Opinions are Not Evidence" Member
Hank,
When I read your post, it seemed at first like you are agreeing with what I said.
With this statement of yours
"Since the PO MO in question has the keypunch card holes - meant to be fed through, and read by machine readers - then the PO MO in question must be card stock."
you are concluding that the Hidell MO is made with card stock. Right? That is also what I believe.
But if it is made with card stock, why is it that the "Mar 12 1963" postal stamp so readily bled through to the back? The fact that it bled though indicates that the MO we see is actually paper stock, not card stock. And this conclusion contradicts the conclusion of the prior paragraph.
You're assuming the bleed-through and card stock are mutually exclusive.
You haven't shown that.
I'm going by what I can see - and the key punch holes are consistent with the IBM punch cards I utilized as a programmer, that were made with card stock.
You appear to be assuming if there's bleed-through, then it can't be card stock.
But you haven't demonstrated that in any way.
Hank
-
Sandy:
That is another mystery is it not?
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?
umm...
When they were stealing the money order, they thought it better just to make a copy lest a bank teller notices and reports the missing money order?
I dunno!
But I'm putting a lot of thought into it.
Wouldn't the real money order be sold and cashed, and in their system to be retrieved?
Wait, that won't work.
That's where this was discovered.
Right?
-
Civility with trolls is not something I practice or promote.
What exactly did I do to get you to classify me as a trolls member? (apparently the singular gets censored)
Ask for evidence?
Question assumptions?
Hank
-
There are two kinds of people in this world.
One type can be told not to pee on an electric fence, and will take the advice in stride and not perform such a foolish act. The other type simply cannot be shown or told and, inevitably, must go out and try it for themselves.
I wonder which category Hank would fall into.
Whoa, Robert. Which category would Mark Lane fall into? Harold Weisberg? Sylvia Meagher? Josiah Thompson?
They questioned the evidence they were shown and the claims that were made about that evidence.
Didn't they?
If all you can do is be dismissive of me for asking for the evidence, then you're dismissive of everyone here, we all want to see the evidence. As far as I know.
Hank
-
Checks and money orders are "commercial paper" or "negotiable instruments". A negotiable instrument is transferred from one party to another by [a] a "pay to" or "pay to the order of" direction, written by party 1, and the endorsement of party 2.
Klein's, as original payee, endorsed (at least that's what we're led to believe) and then (again we're told) deposited the money order in a Chicago bank. Depositing the M.O. was equivalent of writing "pay to". Because the Chicago bank had to transfer the check farther along the payment chain, it had to endorse the money order and then deposit it with the next bank in the chain.
Basic rule here: Any recipient of a negotiable instrument made out "pay to" or "pay to the order of" a specific named party must be endorsed by the recipient in order for the recipient to be able transfer the instrument. This is law. The modern law is the Uniform Commercial Code. The previous law was the Negotiable Instruments Law.
The Chicago bank could not have transferred (technically, negotiated) the M.O. and gotten paid for the $21.45 (or whatever) it remitted to Klein's without endorsing the money order.
This is not a matter of informed opinion or judgment, like an autopsy report. This is black letter law.
Then you should be able to document it. Not just assert it.
And when did it change? Per you, "The modern law is the Uniform Commercial Code. The previous law was the Negotiable Instruments Law."
So please document it using 1963 law, whichever of the above was applicable then.
Thanks much,
Hank
-
He just told you, Jack (as in "you don't know Jack sh.......). Clean the wax out of your ears.
Thank you, Robert. I see it now that I've cleaned the wax out of my ears.
Team "Ad Hominem is not evidence" Member
-
"The City Prefix indicates the location of the bank. It is 15 on the Hidell MO, signifying Washington, DC. The ABA Routing Number 119 is used for postal money orders.* The Federal Reserve Routing Symbol 0000 is used for postal money orders and Treasury checks.** (The leftmost 0 is removed for the fractional form.)"
What significance can be attached to the location of the bank being in Washington, DC, Sandy?
And is the current numbering system the same one in use in 1963?
We wouldn't want to just assume that the current documentation reflects the system in use in 1963, would we?
So does the "15" mean Washington in 1963 terms, or just currently, or both?
Hank
-
DVP asks, well how do you know the money order would need a stamp?
Maybe because the guy who owns Klein's said it had to pass through the Federal Reserve system?
Proof that postal money orders were processed by Federal Reserve Banks can be seen right on the Hidell MO itself.
Right below the MO's serial number (2,202,130,462) is the following symbol:
15-119
------
000
This is the old-style Federal Reserve Routing Number that was used when manual sorting was still being done. This form of the number is referred to as the "fractional form" for obvious reasons. It has been superseded by a non-fractional form, but the fractional form is still required by law to be printed on all bank checks, including money orders. (Note that the horizontal line may be replaced with a "/" slash, so the number will fit on a single line of text.)
Fractional Form of Federal Reserve Routing Number
XX-YYY
--------
ZZZ
XX = City Prefix
YYYY = ABA Institution Identifier (a.k.a. ABA Routing Number)
ZZZ = Federal Reserve Routing Symbol
The City Prefix indicates the location of the bank. It is 15 on the Hidell MO, signifying Washington, DC. The ABA Routing Number 119 is used for postal money orders.* The Federal Reserve Routing Symbol 0000 is used for postal money orders and Treasury checks.** (The leftmost 0 is removed for the fractional form.)
The following document
http://tfm.fiscal.treasury.gov/v2/p4/c700.html
outlines the procedure Federal Reserve Banks are to use when processing postal money orders. Quoting from this document:
"There are a number of outstanding 'punch card' postal money orders that were issued prior to the introduction of paper style postal money orders in the spring of 1973, which bear the ABA routing number 0000-01 19. These money orders have a commercial life of 20 years. Processing instructions for the 'punch card' postal money orders are in II TFM 4-7070 of these instructions." [emphasis mine]
We can see that this refers to the form of MO supposedly used by Oswald.The document refers to these MO's as "Old Style Money Order: A card style money order bearing ABA routing number 0000-0119." They are to be processed as follows:
" 'Punch card' money orders that have the ABA routing number 0000-0119 will be handled as mutilated items. They should be identified as old style 'punch card' money orders on the PS Form 1901 for code 004."
"Mutilated items" are those that cannot be processed in the normal fashion.
In conclusion, we see that the Hidell money order was indeed intended to be processed by a Federal Reserve Bank.And so it would have had FRB numbers stamped on it had it been processed. It was never processed.
*Sources for 119 ABA Routing Number for Postal Money Orders
https://www.frbservices.org/files/servicesetup/check/pdf/check21_special_sort_options_guide.pdf
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2009-title12-vol3/xml/CFR-2009-title12-vol3-part229-appA.xml
**Source for 0000 Federal Reserve Routing Symbol for Postal Money Orders
http://www.eccho.org/uploads/Supplemental-1_2-1_City%20State%20prefixes.pdf
Other Sources:
http://www.eccho.org/uploads/Supplemental-1_2-1_City%20State%20prefixes.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing_transit_number#Federal_Reserve
That wasn't my question. I asked for the evidence that a bank stamp is required on the back of the money order. People cashed money orders at post offices and local banks all the time. They didn't go to the Federal Reserve to get their money.
The claim is that this particular PO Money Order requires a bank stamp from the Bank of Chicago on it; and absent that stamp, it must not have been cashed.
Where's the evidence that it requires said stamp?
Can you cite it?
In addition, and as a side note, you're citing more current documentation that says what to do with the then 1963 punch card (old style) money orders if they are presented for payment TODAY (treat them as mutilated items). That has nothing to do with how they were processed in 1963 when they weren't the old style, but the state-of-the-art style of money orders.
You also appear to be saying the FRB number is both on the money order in question and not on the money order in question:
ON THE MONEY ORDER:
Proof that postal money orders were processed by Federal Reserve Banks can be seen right on the Hidell MO itself.
Right below the MO's serial number (2,202,130,462) is the following symbol:
15-119
------
000
NOT ON THE MONEY ORDER:
In conclusion, we see that the Hidell money order was indeed intended to be processed by a Federal Reserve Bank.And so it would have had FRB numbers stamped on it had it been processed. It was never processed.
Can you advise?
Hank
-
I'm still just waiting for evidence of this supposed need for a bank stamp on the back of a post office money order.
Surely something that exposes the conspiracy would not be just an assumption on everyone's part, would it?
Evidence?
Anyone?
Hank
-
In my opinion, the bleed-thru of the "Mar 12 1963" postal stamp is PROOF POSITIVE that the Hidell MO is made of regular (thin) paper, not the card stock that it should have been made of.
Hi Sandy,
Respectfully, in my opinion, it's not proof of that.
Regular paper money orders wouldn't have the keypunch card holes; as they can't feed through the machine readers like the card stock ones. They would serve no purpose on thin paper.
Have you ever seen one of those suckers in action? Have you ever fed a stack of punched cards through a machine reader?
Since the PO MO in question has the keypunch card holes - meant to be fed through, and read by machine readers - then the PO MO in question must be card stock.
As far as I can see. But of course, I couldn't see the evidence that PO MO's need to be stamped by a bank, either.
Does anyone have any evidence that's anything more than an assumption?
Hank
Team "Opinions are Not Evidence" Member
-
Thanks for the warning again Bob.
That will be it with me and Hank.
Nice pic by the way.
(To the innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire, Hank posts at McAdams' web site and uses aliases elsewhere. Therefore this is a further demonstration of my analysis of how they work. He is part of damage control.)
Nope. "Damage Control" is a different group. I'm part of the "Your Assumptions are not Evidence" team.
I'm just looking for the evidence that PO Money Orders need to have a bank stamp.
I don't see that established anywhere. I understand that checks need that; but checks are a different financial instrument entirely. I also pointed out an apparent erroneous claim within the cited document -- that the money orders were processed manually; but that ignores entirely the fact that the entire point of the keypunch money order is that it's machine-readable.
I'm willing to see evidence. I just haven't been shown any.
And Jim just shutting down like that ("That will be it with me and Hank") apparently means he can't point to any evidence either.
Hank
-
In the time line, it refers to the money order being passed through the federal reserve system. See 11/23/63 the ten am entry.
As is demonstrated, when that happens a mark is placed on it.
Bob: Thanks for the tip. I guess Jean took such beating on this, they are sending in the damage control team.
At the 10am entry I see this:
"FBI SA Gale Johnson, James Hanlon and Phillip Wanerus supposedly
interview Wilmouth - VP 1st National Chicago. Appears to only be
ONE $21.45 Money Order yet Wilmouth says the original PMO would
go to the Fed Reserve of Chicago on Monday the 18th of March."
Nothing about a bank stamp being applied to the back of the PO Money Order.
Where do I see the support for the claim that a bank stamp needs to be applied?
As I said above, it appears to be only an assumption that personal checks and money orders were handled by banks in 1963 in the precise same way, although they are completely different financial instruments.
"Damage Control" is another group entirely. I'm part of the "Your Assumptions are not Evidence" team.
Hank
-
DVP asks, well how do you know the money order would need a stamp?
Maybe because the guy who owns Klein's said it had to pass through the Federal Reserve system?
Or did you not read the article by David Josephs on this? Maybe Jean Davison did not recommend it to you?
I wonder why?
See, this is research, not the net surfing you and Jean, and McAdams do
I'm not seeing anywhere in that article where it says a bank stamp needs to be applied to the back of the money order.
Where, precisely, do you see that affirmation?
In fact, it says something apparently incorrect, which is: "The Hidell/Klein’s PMO is of the old “Punch card” style (as you can see from the punched holes)and would be processed manually."
The entire point of the IBM punch card system is to read the cards via a card reader, convert the holes into data onto magnetic tape, and add it to a computer's database. No citation is listed for that "processed manually" claim either.
It still appears to be an assumption that checks and money orders were treated precisely the same way by banks, although they are completely different financial instruments.
Hank
Of course you can't see it Hank. What would be your purpose here if you could see it?
Do you see it?
If so, where do you see it?
Can you quote for me where it's pointed out money orders should be stamped by the bank in the document cited?
Hank
-
DVP asks, well how do you know the money order would need a stamp?
Maybe because the guy who owns Klein's said it had to pass through the Federal Reserve system?
Or did you not read the article by David Josephs on this? Maybe Jean Davison did not recommend it to you?
I wonder why?
See, this is research, not the net surfing you and Jean, and McAdams do
I'm not seeing anywhere in that article where it says a bank stamp needs to be applied to the back of the money order.
Where, precisely, do you see that affirmation?
In fact, it says something apparently incorrect, which is: "The Hidell/Klein’s PMO is of the old “Punch card” style (as you can see from the punched holes)and would be processed manually."
The entire point of the IBM punch card system is to read the cards via a card reader, convert the holes into data onto magnetic tape, and add it to a computer's database. No citation is listed for that "processed manually" claim either.
It still appears to be an assumption that checks and money orders were treated precisely the same way by banks, although they are completely different financial instruments.
Hank
-
I give it an F.
16 shots by eight shooters?
Does anyone here believe that?
Hank
-
Looming over all of this is the story told by KRLD's Bob Huffaker in the book he co-authored with fellow reporters Bill Mercer, George Phenix and Wes Wise, "When the News Went Live." I interviewed Bob after the book came out in 2004, and he did not back off the following statement:
"Dan brought a 16 mm print of the film to our newsroom a few days after the assassination, and he and I took it into the projection room. Dan had to view it and feed a report about it to Walter Cronkite's evening news. I ran the soundless film over and over again for the better part of an hour while Dan took notes. . . As I ran the now-famous film time after time, Dan and I talked about what it's fuzzy sequence revealed. . . Dan went to a typewriter, then into our television studio, where he reported our conclusions for CBS. Like the rest of us, he read directly from the copy he wrote. . ."
This contradicts Rather's version in all respects. But the story doesn't end there.
By the way, thanks to Craig for posting the video of Rather's "Archive of American Television" interview. There's a blockbuster revelation in there that no one has picked up on so far.
Ken
Ok, and this statement about what Huffaker & Rather did was made how many decades after the assassination?
And has what corroboration?
And are we taking into account that people generally try to inflate their own importance when they retell a story (that minnow becomes a whale eventually).
I think we're seeing some of that in the above.
What evidence is there that Rather obtained a copy of the z-film from any source on Monday, and what evidence is there that Rather saw the film multiple times (other than Huffaker's statement)?
I see nothing in that statement that is believable -- as it conflicts with all the evidence made contemporaneous to the assassination. For example, the known evidence indicates Zapruder did not provide a copy to CBS or any television station. And Rather & CBS (or KRLD), having this blockbuster film on hand and available for viewing, did NOT broadcast the film, but instead, only put Rather on the air to describe it? That makes no sense to me.
For those reasons, I find it difficult to put much credence in Huffaker's claims.
Hank
Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Doesn't Paragraph C apply, like the rest of the section, specifically to *disbursement* money orders issued by the Post Office, and not to the consumer money orders they issue?
You're quoting the wrong section and applying it to the wrong document.
Hank