Sandy Larsen
-
Posts
9,318 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Sandy Larsen
-
-
Has anybody here even used a money order?
It seems there is some confusion as to what a money order is as a financial tool.
It is not similar to a check in that it is already a 'secured' form of payment, therefore the 'endorsement' doesn't meant the same thing as it does with a check.
A money order isn't a check. But it's processed the same way a check is, through a Federal Reserve Bank using their routing number system. There are also other "financial instruments" processed that way.
The purpose of the endorsement is to indicate who is to be paid the money. When you receive a check, you have to endorse it over to the bank because you aren't a member of the Federal Reserve. (The Federal Reserve will pay only member banks.) The bank can then receive payment from a Federal Reserve Bank (and credit it to your account). But the bank must also endorse the instrument... for what reason I'm not sure. But it is required by law. Maybe they are endorsing it over to the Federal Reserve. Or maybe it just creates a paper trail on the check. Makes no difference to me the reason, though it would be nice to know.
-
So, now we know that Lt. Richard Lipsey was not participating in the autopsy but, rather, was a non-medical officer in the audience, is it safe to assume Humes lied about there being no hole in the pleura, and that the back wound bullet very likely entered the top of JFK's right lung?
Remember, it was Jenkins (was it not?) who said he saw the probe pushing the pleura. I wish it was Lipsey who said it, because then it would be easier for me to dismiss. Which would simplify things.
-
I was just listening to the recorded interview of the 1978 HSCA interview of Lt. Richard Lipsey, and I believe I have learned the true nature of his role in the autopsy. I believe some of us mistakenly believed he was assisting in the autopsy, and that he was a medical personnel with some experience in autopsy procedures. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, as aide de camp to General Wehle, his duties were in assisting to coordinate movement of JFK's casket to Bethesda. As he admits himself early on in the interview, he merely observed the autopsy, and not all of it, either. At about the 14:00 mark, he actually tells the interviewers that JFK's corpse was the first corpse he had ever seen.
I believe this deals a serious blow to the confirmation of whether or not the metal probe, used by Humes to probe JFK's back wound, was actually stopped from entering the pleural cavity by an intact pleural membrane. Once again, we must consider the very real possibility that the probing was part of a charade and that Lipsey, from his POV as an observer, very likely could not get close enough to JFK to look inside his pleural cavity, and was relying entirely on what was being said by Humes.
I guess I should have said something. I know Lt. Lipsey's story well because he played a role in the decoy hearse thing that Lifton exposed in Best Evidence. I knew he wasn't a medical guy. And he said himself that he didn't have a good view.
The reason I found his testimony interesting is because it was like a tape recording of what the doctors were saying. He seemed to remember well the gist of what was going on. His testimony rang true to me when I read it. Though I did keep in mind as I read it that he wasn't a medical type and he didn't have a good view.
You know, I can't remember what it was in Lipsey's testimony that confirmed or otherwise affected our view of Jenkins' statement about seeing the probe pushing on an intact pleural membrane. Oh wait... Lipsey talked about the bullet going down into the rib cage or something like that, right? Which would contradict Jenkins. Right? Jenkins is a medical technician, so he was the one I took more seriously on the details.
But your point is well taken on the charade card.
-
John Armstrong can help you guys out maybe. I recommend downloading the entire PDF.
Page 6 of this document is section 171.3 Cashing Money Orders:
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/34791/rec/1
Thanks Chris. Unfortunately it doesn't cover cashing MOs at a bank. Just at a post office. Unless I missed something.
-
Before anybody disputes this, remember that there IS a space on the back of the MO for endorsements. And there IS a printed note on the back that mentions endorsements. And now we see, above, that MOs ARE supposed to be endorsed, just as checks are to be endorsed. And there's no reason to believe anything has changed since the Federal Reserve was created.
Keep in mind also that Klein's endorsed the MO. And the Federal Reserve Bank can pay only the bank, not Klein's. Which is the reason why the bank must endorse it. Just as they would with checks.
-
"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.
I'm not sure I understand this. Does this mean the US Postal Service, headquartered in Washington, DC, was the "bank" that issued money orders for all of the post offices in the USA in 1963?
That would be my guess. It's like Chase Bank has hundreds of banks, but their City Prefix refers to their headquarters. The City Prefix was dropped from the Federal Reserve routing number when banks switch to the MICR (magnetic ink character recognition) system. Though it is still printed in the upper left corner of the check.
-
Sandy,
You know what the next question will be - you linked to regulations that were revised in 2013, what about the regulations in 1963?
Yes I know.
-
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?
Hank,
See this:
-
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.
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.
Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
While it's true that there are a number of inconsistencies and inexplicable things indicating Oswald didn't shoot the Carcano or any rifle that day, I like to use the fact that the money order was never cashed because it is such a simple things to see and understand. And the fact that an unprocessed MO was used as evidence against Oswald is strong evidence he was being framed.
Think about it. The prosecution presents as evidence the murder weapon, and a money order that was used to pay for the murder weapon, along with related document... only, the money order was NOT used to buy anything. The way the weapon was paid for is a critical link, but is proven to be false evidence. How can it be explained? Well, maybe the weapon was shipped without payment being received. Oh really? Then how do you explain the records showing the MO was deposited?? That's right, the MO that wasn't deposit was deposited. I don't think so. It smacks of framery.