Sandy Larsen

The Hidell money order, supposedly used to pay for the Carcano rifle, which supposedly was used by Lee Harvey Oswald to shoot President Kennedy, has no bank endorsements or Federal Reserve Bank stamps.

This proves that the money order was never processed, and this is strong evidence that Oswald was being framed as JFK's killer.

Lone nutters claim or believe that no endorsements or FRB stamps are needed for postal money orders. They want to see the proof. Well...

Here's the proof:.

EDIT: See this later post for the correct proof. The following applies to special money orders called "disbursement postal money orders."

From the Code of Federal Regulations, 39 CFR 762.29 ©

CFR › Title 39 (Postal Service) › Chapter I › Subchapter J › Part 762 › Subpart B › Section 762.29 > Paragraph c

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.

Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=sfQIBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=CFR+Title+39+762.29&source=bl&ots=0yisztpk2H&sig=vHRvehU3ARSDQwLZU6hT6bfC1UQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBmoVChMIoY6KuvmKyQIVC-RjCh3s8QEt#v=onepage&q=CFR%20Title%2039%20762.29&f=false

CORRECTON: The above law applies to a special type of Postal Money Order, called a Disbursement Postal Money Order. The law regarding bank stamps on regular Postal Money Orders is the same, but is published elsewhere in the Code of Federal Regulations. See this post on page 11 for details.

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?

Jim didn't say all the evidence had been faked. DVP said that. I merely ignored the fact that DVP was exaggerating.

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?

Checks and money orders are processed the same way. Federal Reserve Banks clear them both. I read the process a couple months ago, but can't find that manual right now. I could find no separate procedures for PMOs.

What's the numbers 138 01597856 at the very top of the Money Order signify?

I don't know. It appears to be some kind of internal number used by the USPS.

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

I don't have the time to do what you're asking for, Hank. Sorry.

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!

"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."

David,

I have a theory that, if true, would explain a lot of stuff like this. It would also explain how a fairly large conspiracy could be accomplished without people talking. My theory isn't original, but may be unique as a whole.

I'm gonna try to keep this as brief as possible. It's based on the concepts of compartmentalization and "need-to-know" that are used by intelligence agencies, the military, and defense contractors. I'm familiar with these because I use to hold a number of top secret clearances.

First you need to understand how effective these methods can be. An example of their use was in the development of the F-117 stealth fighter. It was developed, built, tested, and put in production over a period of thirteen years before it's existence was finally revealed in 1988. Hundreds -- maybe in the low thousands -- of people worked on this project. And yet it was never leaked or discovered. Even with it being test flown numerous times.

The reason such a thing is possible is because each person working on the project is given only enough information to complete their task. This is the "need to know" concept at play. The vast majority of the people working on the fighter had no idea what they were working on.

I believe the same techniques were used in the Kennedy assassination. I also believe that the plotters kept themselves well insulated from those actually doing the work. Those doing the work took orders, but didn't really know what was going on.

I remember doing things myself, when I was in the business, that made no sense to me... I just did what I was told. To this day I have no idea what I was working on in many of my projects. A little has since been declassified, and I've been able to figure out what was going on. But that's only because I remember some code words being used at the time.

Anyway, so some CIA yahoos decide to kill the president. They have their lieutenants pass orders on down to lower level agents, who assign tasks to JFK-hating assets.

Some of these assents are less competent than others. These are the ones who make mistakes.

In addition, no plan is perfect and snafus happen. Those things are cleaned up later.

Disinformation, intimidation, blackmail is used to control people.

If you think this sort of thing doesn't happen or cannot happen, you are very naive. Look into the coups that have happened in other countries. Is the U.S. any different from those?

Another part of my theory is that the CIA rogues used blackmail to get officials to do things for them. I believe it wasn't hard to blackmail these people because they were already Kennedy haters. It would have been easy to find Kennedy haters among the Cubans, the Mafia, and Texans.

According to James Wagenvoord, an LIFE Magazine employee, in 1963 the magazine was about to publish an article about money that had been funneled from lobbyists and contractors to LBJ when he was in the Senate. The information was coming from Robert Kennedy's office and it was meant to force him off the 1964 presidential ticket. Can you imagine this being revealed to LBJ, followed by some threat if he didn't do what he was told to do? Don't you think there would be a chance LBJ would go along rather than face being disgraced as VP and possibly doing time? The other option being that he stays out of prison and becomes president?

I don't claim to be an expert on any of this stuff. But I know enough to understand it's not just the stuff of spy novels.

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

Hank,

You are right, and I'm glad you challenged me.

I happened to have some 3" x 5" cards that are 0.007" thick, which is the same thickness as the old IBM cards. And some printer paper.

I have three stamps of different make, type, and color. Black and blue.

I did a number of informal tests. Here's what I found.

Card Stock - Heavy Hand:

Pushing the stamps down fairly hard on the cards for one second produced enough bleed-thru that I could make it out on the back side... barely. One end of one my stamps is on the wet side and I could easily see that, though not anywhere near as much as we can see the "Mar 12 1963" stamp on the MO.

Card Stock - Normal Hand:

Punching the stamps briefly, the way one normally would, on the cards produced very little bleed-thru, if any at all. I could barely make it out on the reverse side, and when I stamped on that side as well, it was difficult to see the print from the other side. In fact, I thought that what I could see wasn't due to bleed-thru, but rather was "seeing through" the card due to some translucency.

Paper Stock - Normal Hand:

Punching the stamps briefly, the way one normally would, on printer paper produced noticeable bleed-thru. In fact I could see all of it. Some of it was as bad as the "Mar 12 1963" stamp on the MO.

I was surprised that all three of those stamp marks on the printer paper could be easily seen on the back side. But then I realized that what I could see wasn't all due to bleed thru, but rather was "seeing through" the paper, again due to translucency.

Dark Background:

In all the above tests I looked at the paper/card with it placed on a white background. Realizing that some of what I'd seen was due to translucency, I tried looking at them again but on a dark background instead. Doing that made a huge difference... I could see much less from the opposite side, in all cases. In fact, I could see nothing at all through the card stock, even with the Heavy Hand stamps. So what I thought was a little bleeding through the card was actually due to its translucency. And when I could see all the stamps through the printer paper, that was mostly due to its translucency.

Preliminary Conclusion:

All in all, with all the stamping I did on both the card and paper, I can say without hesitation that the card didn't resemble the MO at all. But the printer paper was considerably worse than the money order. That was with a white background. With a dark background the printer paper was comparable with the MO.

My conclusion is that the MO isn't card stock. But either it is a thicker paper than what I have in the printer, or it was photographed on a dark background.

Final Conclusion:

I just took another look at the MO photographs. It does look like it was photographed on a dark background. My guess is that the photographer either knew or figured out right away that a dark background was needed to keep the print from the opposite side from showing.

So my final conclusion is that the money order isn't card stock. It is comparable with the paper I have in the printer, and it was photographed on a dark background.

End

I was actually hoping my conclusion would come out the other way... that would have been an easier thing to explain. But as I told DVP, I always go with the evidence.

I invite others to try this test themselves.

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?

It depends on when the real money order was bought and cashed. But your point is good.

Warren Commission Document No. 75, Page 668, is an FBI report that says a money order for $21.45 was sent to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago on March 16, 1963 (next-to-last paragraph)....

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10477#relPageId=672

Sure looks like the Hidell money order entered the federal banking system to me.

Maybe so. But if it did, it got lost and later was found. But it was never processed, a point that's indisputable.

And when I say "maybe so," that could be the case only if Klein's was willing to ship an order before being paid. Which actually might have been the case given that money orders are always good if genuine and are rarely forged.

HOWEVER.... remember, the money has been shown to be printed on paper, not card stock. So could it have even been accepted by the bank, or sent to the Federal Reserve Bank? Not likely IMO.

I think it's more likely that the Klein's witness is lying. (I can't remember his name and maryferrell.org is down right now.)

Why would he lie? Maybe he was told it was a matter of national security.

I just go where the evidence leads me, David. The money order wasn't processed, and probably wasn't even deposited in the bank.

"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

The Federal Reserve Routing Number system in use in the 1960s is still in use today. Nothing has changed. Magnetic ink characters, those futuristic looking numbers we see at the bottom of checks, were adopted in 1958 and were in wide use by 1963. But they convey the same information, sans the City Prefix, that the fractional FRB symbol on the postal money order conveyed.

So yes, 15 did mean Washington DC in 1963.

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.

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.

"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?

I should have clarified that the City Prefix indicates the location of the issuing bank. I believe that the issuing bank for postal money orders is the U.S. Post Office itself, but I haven't been able to verify that. In 1963 the U.S, Post Office was headquartered in the Old Post Office and Clock Tower building in Washington D.C. So I imagine that is the reason for Washington D.C. being the designated city.

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.

Yeah, inescapable BS.

You, Jim, should be very familiar with those two initials -- BS -- what with the fact you believe in every one of these incredibly ridiculous things....

jfk-archives/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-81/The-Stupid-Things-James-DiEugenio-Believes

I'll comment on DVP's list items that I feel knowledgeable enough to make an accurate statement:

1.) Oswald didn't fire a single shot at JFK.

But David, there is no evidence Oswald shot a rifle that day, whereas there is evidence that he didn't. James is right.

6.) Oswald never ordered a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods.

There is no evidence Oswald paid for a rifle bought from Klein's.

14.) Buell Wesley Frazier lied about a bunch of stuff after the assassination, including the whopper about seeing Oswald carrying a large bag into the TSBD.

I know that Frazier testified that the package fit between Oswald's armpit and his cupped hand, and that it wasn't long enough for the Carcano to fit. I watched the interview myself. Now, if he testified otherwise at another time, he had be lying at least once.

17.) The autopsy report is pure bunk, which almost certainly means that DiEugenio thinks that all three autopsy doctors (Humes, Finck, and Boswell) lied out their collective assholes about President Kennedy's wounds.

More than forty witnesses saw a gaping hole in the back of JFK's head, and these were all medical and other credible witnesses, like SS and FBI agents. Yet the autopsy back-of-head photo shows absolutely no damage whatsoever. Forty some odd medical people cannot be wrong about what they saw. James is right.

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.

21.) There were very likely at least two "Lee Oswalds" running around in various locations before the assassination. (In general, DiEugenio pretty much believes everything in John Armstrong's book of fantasy about there being "2 Oswalds" and "2 Marguerites". This proves that NO theory is too outrageous or preposterous for Mr. DiEugenio's gullible palate.)

I haven't read the whole Harvey and Lee book. But from what I have seen, there clearly were two Oswalds. And Armstrong is proving more and more to be a credible researcher. Of all of us, he was the first and only one to understand the money order punch holes. I think James is right again..

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.

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.

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.

John Armstrong quote:

".... As you can see on many examples, with an uncashed postal money order from 1961 (front and back sides), with rectangular punched holes...."

James, do you know if this 1961 uncashed postal money order is posted somewhere? I couldn't find it.

This piece by Josephs is even better I think:

http://www.ctka.net/2015/JosephsMOTimeline.pdf

very revealing of how the money ordere(s) surfaced.

That is amazing.

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 back 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 issuing 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 marks stamped on it had it been processed. It was never processed.

*Source for 15 City Prefix code used for Washington ,DC

http://www.eccho.org/uploads/Supplemental-1_2-1_City%20State%20prefixes.pdf

**Sources for 119 ABA Routing Number used 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 used 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

EDIT: Changed "FRB numbers" to "FRB marks."

You had a nice contribution there also Sandy.

Thanks James. Thanks also to Robert, Chris, and Jon. Appreciation like this makes it worth the effort it takes to contribute. Of course, desire to know the truth is the real motivator.

Special thanks to DVP, who says my work is "amazing."

Post #22 in http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22418&page=2

When I was searching for information on money orders using punch codes, I came across the same news article pointed out by David Von Pein:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19620623&id=2PQiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Nc0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=5330,4714873&hl=en

This 1962 article reports on a new money that uses punched holes on "IBM-like" cards which could be read by machines. At the time, I dismissed the relevancy of the article because IBM cards were made of a thick/stiff stock of paper, whereas the Hidell MO was clearly made of a thin paper. Given that the Hidell money order similarly used punched holes, I figured that it must be some kind of predecessor to the IBM-like card MOs being tested at select locations, as mentioned in the article.

At that point I wondered how it was possible for a machine to read MOs like the Hidell one. Such thin sheets of paper could not have been kept in correct alignment for a machine to read the holes. Some form of "registration" was needed. ("Registration," in technical parlance, is a term used to mean "means for maintaining correct alignment.")

At the time, I figured that the round holes in the MO must have been what was used for registration purposes. The MOs would have been placed on a plate with pins perfectly matched to the size and location of the MO's round holes, and these would hold the MOs securely in place while the machine read the rectangular holes.

I later rejected that idea when I looked more closely and noticed that the holes seemed to be spaced perfectly for holding numerical information. After that I simply forgot about the registration problem, as I went on to decode the round holes.

Well, today I remembered the registration problem when I again saw that 1962 news report about the IBM-like card MOs. And I thought, since the round holes were not used for registration, how was it possible for a machine to have reliably read the holes in MOs like the Hidell one?

Well, now I realize that the Hidell MO is almost certainly the same MO reported on in the news article. That explains how the holes in the card could have been read by a machine. It makes perfect sense that the Dallas post office began using the new card around the same time as the post offices noted in the news article. (Actually, the post offices noted were in "... nine states, ... Florida, Georgia, and North and South Carolina, all in the Atlanta postal region, and five states in the Denver region." Texas was likely one of the five states in the Denver region, with Dallas being among the post offices using the new money order)

Having concluded that, I now have a full appreciation for John Armstrong's criticism regarding bleed-thru of stamps on the Hidell MO. 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. THIS IS YET ANOTHER SMOKING GUN OF A FAKED MONEY ORDER.

This money order is fake, fake, fake! It is strong evidence Oswald was being framed as the shooter of JFK.

Once again I am amazed by the depth of research done by John Armstrong.

Presumably when in DCA and speaking directly to Burkley, Kinney asked, "What should I do with it?" and Burkley replied "Get rid of it!"

Wow.

Do you know if the portable unit was used for all the x-rays?

According to the two x-rays techs, ONLY the portable machine was used.

there was a period of time (about an hour?) when Humes had the body before the gallery was filled and the official autopsy began. A regular x-ray machine might have been used then.

The non-portable x-ray equipment was on the 4th floor. IMO the body would have been seen at sometime during the required round trip, and we would have at least heard stories that this had happened.

Tom said:

Why chop up the lungs looking for bullets/fragments when you could send the right lung with one of the techs to use the available high-res x-ray machine? Unless of course your goal was to destroy the evidence of a perforated lung with dust-like "particles that look like metal but are actually dirt" to quote Ebersole and the HSCA.

But the part about dust-like particles looking like metal to a radiologist, Dr. Ebersole, certainly grabs my attention, particularly in light of this frangible/exotic bullet discussion. Unexposed film in hospitals doesn't get dirty.

ALL of the removed internal organs could have been transported to the high-res x-ray machine and x-rayed en masse by one or both techs while Humes and the others continued with their work. With this option readily available, what possible reason could they have for breaking out the meat cleaver? Hmmm...the topic of a frangible as well as an 'exotic' type of bullet was brought up by the FBI, who immediately called the FBI Lab to ask about these alternatives to an FMJ. The FBI concluded these were possibilities. Of course, If you are not allowed to produce evidence of a frangible bullet then you would NOT use the equipment that would have revealed one if it was present.

The cut-up organs were 'put back into the body'. Is this normal procedure, or was it a quick and easy way to get rid of incriminating evidence?

Tom

All good points, Tom.

Maybe I'm working too hard to make an honest man out of Humes. It's just that Robert's latest theory, if on track, seems to make Humes's testimony more honest. And David Lifton's new book apparently will do the same. Other than for the latest change he made that required burning the first autopsy report, Humes seemed to have been a more honest broker than I thought.

Even if banks did use punch holes for endorsements at the time, so what? The Hidell money order has no such holes punched.

And after receiving your Masters Degree in "Keypunch Hole Evaluation" just a few hours ago after your one-day crash course at Keypunch School, you actually feel confident enough to make the statement you just made about the Hidell money order having "no such holes punched" in it?

Amazing.

Thank you, David.

Take a look at the following page, where I explain the holes in more detail:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22434

All the holes are explained. There are no holes left for punched bank stamps.