Rectangular and round punch codes on the Hidell money order explained.

[Hank Sienzant]

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?

[David Von Pein]

Just like Bardwell Odum showed Wright and Tomlinson CE 399 and they positively identified it, right ?

Give us all a break OK?

And let's not forget about the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald's handwriting is on the money order in question -- the original of which was examined by questioned documents expert Alwyn Cole of the Treasury Department.....

MELVIN EISENBERG -- "Mr. Cole, I now hand you an item consisting of a U.S. postal money order in the amount of $21.45, payable to Klein's Sporting Goods, from "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas." For the record I will state that this money order was included with the purchase order in Exhibit 773 which has just been identified, and was intended and used as payment for the weapon shipped in response to the purchase order, 773. I ask you, Mr. Cole, whether you have examined this money order for the purpose of determining whether it was prepared by the author of the standards?"

ALWYN COLE -- "Yes, sir."

MR. EISENBERG -- "What was your conclusion, Mr. Cole?"

MR. COLE -- "It is my conclusion that the handwriting on this money order is in the hand of the person who executed the standard writing [i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald]."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Looks like we can add the name of Alwyn Cole to James DiEugenio's list of falsehood tellers. Right, Jim? (Or does Cole already show up as #1,846 on your existing list?)

[James DiEugenio]

Davey:

I am not taking to you anymore on this issue. OK?

I only did so to show the others how your constellation works: the McAdams, DVP, Davison connection. So they will not be fooled again.

Over and out.

Bye.

[Sandy Larsen]

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.

[David Von Pein]

Davey:

I am not ta[l]king to you anymore on this issue. OK?

I only did so to show the others how your constellation works: the McAdams, DVP, Davison connection. So they will not be fooled again.

Over and out.

Bye.

Okay, Jimmy.

Ten-Four and Wilco.

One-Adam-12 out.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-complete-series.html

Edited November 11, 2015 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

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.

[David Von Pein]

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!

Edited November 11, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

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.

[Hank Sienzant]

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

Edited November 11, 2015 by Hank Sienzant

[Hank Sienzant]

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

Edited November 12, 2015 by Hank Sienzant

[Hank Sienzant]

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

[Sandy Larsen]

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..

[Sandy Larsen]

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.

[Hank Sienzant]

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

Edited November 12, 2015 by Hank Sienzant

[Hank Sienzant]

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