Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

[Hank Sienzant]

But, Hank, it says in that very same paragraph of the regulation that....

"The endorsement of the sending bank should be dated and should show the American Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent type on both sides."

None of which is found on the CE788 Hidell money order.

But it's very likely (IMO) that the Hidell M.O. was part of a bulk transfer of postal money orders which was accompanied by a cash letter (deposit ticket), which very likely did have those stamps on it (i.e., the date and the ABA transit numbers).

To believe the Hidell M.O. is fraudulent is silly, especially when we KNOW it was found just exact where it should have been found in Alexandria/Washington.

And we also have information in CD75 coming from a First National Bank Vice President (Wilmouth) verifying that First National DID handle the $21.45 Postal Money Order in question.

How many more years will conspiracy theorists completely ignore these important paragraphs found in Commission Document No. 75? ....

The paragraph I am looking at says all that's necessary is an endorsement TO the bank. And we have that in the Kleins stamp.

It goes on to say that "The act of sending or deliver­ing a cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however, be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty of all prior endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is incorporated in the sending bank’s endorsement."

In other words, the FRB will accept money orders without any additional endorsements, and it's understood that the very act of submitting the money order for payment is the guarantee that the prior endorsements are valid on the part of the submitting bank (in this case, The First National Bank of Chicago.

Endorsements

13. All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar endorsement. Cash items will be accepted by us, and by other Federal Reserve Banks, only upon the understanding and condition that all prior endorsements are guaranteed by the sending bank. There should be incorporated in the endorsement of the sending bank the phrase, “ All prior endorsements guaranteed.” The act of sending or deliver­ing a cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however, be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty of all prior endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is incorporated in the sending bank’s endorsement. The endorsement of the sending bank should be dated and should show the American Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent type on both sides.

​You are correct that the money order doesn't have any additional endorsements. But per the language above, I'm not seeing where it needs any, as the very act of submitting the money order for payment is the guaranty that the sending bank (in this case, First National of Chicago) guarantees the item is valid.

Could the ABA number be the number specified on the Klein's stamp ("50 91144") right under the bank name?

It appears the FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO no longer exists.

http://www.nndb.com/company/096/000124721/

Hank

​

Edited December 21, 2015 by Hank Sienzant

[David Von Pein]

Could the ABA number be the number specified on the Klein's stamp ("50 91144") right under the bank name?

William Waldman testified that that number was the Klein's "account number". Whether or not some of those numbers signify "ABA transit numbers", I have no idea....

Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 788, which appears to be a U.S. postal money order payable to the order of Klein's Sporting Goods, and marked that it's from a purchaser named A. Hidell, and as the purchaser's street address is Post Office Box No. 2915, and the purchaser's City, Dallas, Tex.; March 12, 1963: and underneath the amount of $21.45, the number 2,202,130,462. And on the reverse side there appears to be an endorsement of a bank. I wonder if you would read that endorsement, if you would, and examine it, please.

Mr. WALDMAN. This is a stamped endorsement reading "Pay to the order of the First National Bank of Chicago," followed by our account No. 50 space 91144, and that, in turn, followed by "Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc."

Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not that is your company's endorsement on that money order?

Mr. WALDMAN. It's identical to our endorsement.

[Guest]

I have a idea for you Lance.

Given that FRB requirements for PMO clearing hasn't changed much since 1960, maybe the Agreement between the U.S. Postal Service and Federal Reserve Banks hasn't changed much either. If you want to prove me wrong about the Agreement being published in operating circulars, just find the current agreement and show me that it contains regulations for commercial banks that aren't in the operating circulars. Also, you could show me that the Agreement has an exemption for bank endorsements on PMOs.

It shouldn't be too hard to find the current Agreement. Tom Scully could probably find it for you.

My "research," reflecting my level of interest, has been limited to what I could find through Google. I was not able to find a copy of the Agreement from any year. For someone with a higher level of interest, a FOIA request should turn up everything that is available at minimal expense.

The problem is, we cannot assume anything. There was in 1963 an Agreement, a Code of Federal Regulations, a Federal Reserve Regulation J, a variety of operating circulars, and some standard procedure for processing PMOs at the level of the local bank, the Federal Reserve (as agent for the Postal Service) and the Treasury Department. We need to establish what the reality was.

The Gospel of Endorsements has been predicated almost entirely on a supposed "Wilmouth statement" that is looking more and more like a fabrication by John Armstrong, the God of Money Order Fakery. I seem to be the only one who finds the apparent fabrication and certainly the lack of explanation by Armstrong to be troubling (a lack of interest which I, in turn, find rather troubling and telling).

The 1960 FRB circular stated, "and with respect to matters not coveredby such agreement, the provisions of Regulation J, this circular and our time schedules shall be deemed applicable to all postal money orders." This seems like rather odd language to use if the Agreement were "published in operating circulars" as you suggest. I don't feel a burden to "prove you wrong" because you are simply making an assumption that is, on its face, inconsistent with the FRB circular.

On this thread, this forum, and all places where True Believers congregate, there is seldom anything resembling an effort to arrive at the actual truth. Various species of Young Earth Creationists, Radical Jihadists, New Atheists and Armstrong Groupies rabidly defend their turf, shouting down any evidence that challenges their position while being willing to make unlikely inferences and assumptions if this will prop up their position. It's what litigation would be like if we had no ethical rules, rules of evidence, rules of procedure, burdens of proof, presumptions, requirements for qualifying expert witnesses, etc. It would be utter chaos. If the truth actually did emerge by dumb luck, it would be lost in the chaos. To borrow a phrase from no less a philosopher than Mr. T, I pity the poor fool who doesn't understand why threads like this go nowhere.

Someone beat me to the punch of pointing out that the Armstrong sycophants have managed to derail the thread with the reliable changing-the-subject ploy. Yawn.

Hi Lance,

That was me that pointed out the attempt to change the subject.

Did you notice the point I made in post 319 (and before that in post 309) that what Sandy Larsen provided says the money order only needs to be endorsed TO THE ORDER OF any bank, not BY the bank? And that the current money order appears to meet that specified criteria, as it is endorsed via that Klein's stamp PAYABLE TO THE ORDER OF THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22439&p=320774

I'm of the persuasion that pretty much seals the deal, unless something new comes up.

Hank

Hi, Hank -

I was of the persuasion that the File Locator Number (the explanation for which I discovered) pretty much sealed the deal - but that was, like, 285 posts ago and obviously did not seal the deal for Those for Whom the Deal Will Never be Sealed. Why TFWTDWNBS have so much emotion invested in this arcane issue is quite wild; the fate of any particular conspiracy theory scarcely hinges on the PMO being a fake.

I did see the language you are mentioning, and it could be interpreted that way - i.e., simply being endorsed to the First Bank of Chicago was sufficient to show the PMO had been duly cashed and for the bank to then transmit the PMO to the Federal Reserve. My pure guess is that the whole endorsement issue (apart from the obvious requirement for the payee to endorse the PMO before cashing it) is actually a non-issue - i.e., that everyone knew PMOs were to be transmitted in bulk, no endorsements after the payee's endorsement were required, and everything connected with the Klein's PMO was business-as-usual.

I cheerfully admit my pure guess is indeed a pure guess based on (1) what a PMO is, (2) the fact that the FRB was processing PMOs only because it was acting as an agent for the Postal Service, and (3) the presence of the File Locator Number, which shows the PMO had reached the end of the line. I truly have no emotions invested in this. If John Armstrong surfaces tomorrow, explains that he's been in a coma for the past two months, steers me to a copy of the Wilmouth statement, and otherwise definitively settles the PMO issue, I will be delighted and immediately trot to the Goodwill store to retrieve my copy of Harvey and Lee.

[David Von Pein]

A "Money Order Timeline" summary....

Please note that there is solid evidence to support every step of the Hidell money order's journey --- from the post office in Dallas all the way to the document's final resting place at the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia (just outside Washington, D.C.)....

1.) The Dallas "G.P.O." Post Office handled the CE788 "Hidell" money order --- via the two stamps applied to the M.O. at the post office (i.e., the "Dallas, Tex.; G.P.O.; Mar. 12, 1963" stamp and the "$21.45" stamp that appear on the money order).

2.) The purchaser, Lee Harvey Oswald, handled the money order --- via the fact that Oswald's handwriting is on the document.

3.) Klein's Sporting Goods Company handled the money order --- via the Klein's "Pay To The Order Of The First National Bank Of Chicago" stamp on the back of the M.O.

4.) The First National Bank of Chicago handled the money order in question --- via the FBI interview with First National Bank Vice President Robert Wilmouth on November 23, 1963 [see CD75]. In that interview, Wilmouth verified that his bank received a $13,827.98 deposit from Klein's on 3/15/63, which contained a U.S. Postal Money Order in the amount of 21 dollars and 45 cents. Wilmouth also verified that the subject money order was sent to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago on March 16, 1963.

5.) The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago handled the Hidell money order --- via the presence on the document of the ten-digit "File Locator Number" in the upper left corner, which is a number that is stamped on a money order (or check) only after it has reached a Federal Reserve Bank for processing.

6.) And the CE788 money order was recovered on November 23, 1963, by employees of the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia, which is precisely where approximately 75% of the U.S. Postal Money Orders were being sent for storage by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in March of 1963 [see CD75, Page 669].

Now, if ALL of the above things are fake, fraudulent, or just a bunch of lies, then I think we can all agree that miracles are, indeed, possible.

[Guest]

Could the ABA number be the number specified on the Klein's stamp ("50 91144") right under the bank name?

William Waldman testified that that number was the Klein's "account number". Whether or not some of those numbers signify "ABA transit numbers", I have no idea....

ABA transit (routing) numbers are nine digits. The Klein's account number would bear no relation to an ABA transit number. A PMO, unlike a check, is drawn on the Post Office rather than a bank. All national banks must be members of the Federal Reserve system; state-chartered banks may join but do not have to. When a PMO was presented to a Federal Reserve member bank like FNB in Chicago, the PMO wasn't going to pass through any further stages - it was simply going to the regional Federal Reserve Bank for the region in which the member bank was located, to be processed by the FRB as the agent for the Post Office. The Federal Reserve regulations basically said, "If the Post Office has a problem with a PMO after we process it, that will be the Post Office's problem and we are not going to become involved." I am out of my depth, as is everyone else on this thread, but it is difficult for me to see any reason the Federal Reserve would require an endorsement by a member bank that was simply transmitting a PMO to the regional FRB. As Hank has stated, the Klein's endorsement was sufficient to show how/why the PMO was in the hands of the Chicago bank. My guess is that it is a fundamental error to equate a PMO to a bank check.

[Hank Sienzant]

David, thanks for the info.

​You are correct, the "50 91144" number on the postal money order Klein's stamp is the account number of Kleins at the First National Bank of Chicago. It's not the ABA routing number as I surmised it might be.

​Hank

Edited December 21, 2015 by Hank Sienzant

[Hank Sienzant]

Could the ABA number be the number specified on the Klein's stamp ("50 91144") right under the bank name?

William Waldman testified that that number was the Klein's "account number". Whether or not some of those numbers signify "ABA transit numbers", I have no idea....

ABA transit (routing) numbers are nine digits. The Klein's account number would bear no relation to an ABA transit number. A PMO, unlike a check, is drawn on the Post Office rather than a bank. All national banks must be members of the Federal Reserve system; state-chartered banks may join but do not have to. When a PMO was presented to a Federal Reserve member bank like FNB in Chicago, the PMO wasn't going to pass through any further stages - it was simply going to the regional Federal Reserve Bank for the region in which the member bank was located, to be processed by the FRB as the agent for the Post Office. The Federal Reserve regulations basically said, "If the Post Office has a problem with a PMO after we process it, that will be the Post Office's problem and we are not going to become involved." I am out of my depth, as is everyone else on this thread, but it is difficult for me to see any reason the Federal Reserve would require an endorsement by a member bank that was simply transmitting a PMO to the regional FRB. As Hank has stated, the Klein's endorsement was sufficient to show how/why the PMO was in the hands of the Chicago bank. My guess is that it is a fundamental error to equate a PMO to a bank check.

Lance,

I've also always felt that it was an error to compare a personal check with a post office money order.

They are fundamentally different financial instruments. A personal check is written by a person and drawn on that person's issuing bank account. It is backed by only the money in the account. That account could have no money in it, and the check will then bounce once it gets back to the issuing back and is reconciled against the account. They will get their money back from whomever presented it to the bank, and ultimately, it will fall upon the check-writer (or the first person to deposit the check, if the check-writer can't be located) to repay that money. That's why you shouldn't fall for scams promising you 10% for writing checks for someone in Nigeria, even when they send you a check for the money upfront...

A post office money order is entirely different. The post office gets the money up front, and thereafter issues the money order. It's already guaranteed good by the post office, and you can accept that with no fear the money order will bounce.

I always believed it was an error on Armstrong's part to compare the two, and argue that since a personal check needs bank stamps every step of the way, so would a post office money order.

It's like comparing pineapples and hand grenades.

Hank

[David Josephs]

A "Money Order Timeline" summary....

Please note that there is solid evidence to support every step of the Hidell money order's journey --- from the post office in Dallas all the way to the document's final resting place at the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia (just outside Washington, D.C.)....

1.) The Dallas "G.P.O." Post Office handled the CE788 "Hidell" money order --- via the two stamps applied to the M.O. at the post office (i.e., the "Dallas, Tex.; G.P.O.; Mar. 12, 1963" stamp and the "$21.45" stamp that appear on the money order).

2.) The purchaser, Lee Harvey Oswald, handled the money order --- via the fact that Oswald's handwriting is on the document.

3.) Klein's Sporting Goods Company handled the money order --- via the Klein's "Pay To The Order Of The First National Bank Of Chicago" stamp on the back of the M.O.

4.) The First National Bank of Chicago handled the money order in question --- via the FBI interview with First National Bank Vice President Robert Wilmouth on November 23, 1963 [see CD75]. In that interview, Wilmouth verified that his bank received a $13,827.98 deposit from Klein's on 3/15/63, which contained a U.S. Postal Money Order in the amount of 21 dollars and 45 cents. Wilmouth also verified that the subject money order was sent to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago on March 16, 1963.

5.) The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago handled the Hidell money order --- via the presence on the document of the ten-digit "File Locator Number" in the upper left corner, which is a number that is stamped on a money order (or check) only after it has reached a Federal Reserve Bank for processing.

6.) And the CE788 money order was recovered on November 23, 1963, by employees of the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia, which is precisely where approximately 75% of the U.S. Postal Money Orders were being sent for storage by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in March of 1963 [see CD75, Page 669].

Now, if ALL of the above things are fake, fraudulent, or just a bunch of lies, then I think we can all agree that miracles are, indeed, possible.

David - if there was solid evidence you'd point to it or post it. You telling us to TRUST YOU since you know the evidence is there is pretty lame. Especially since the evidence you call up can all be shown for the crap it is...

1) For that money order to be purchased by Oswald he needed to have left work at some point during that day - assumedly prior to the 10:30AM stamp on the envelope - walk from JCS at 544 Browder to 400 N Ervay, the USGPO with the FBI field office just next door - purchase the PMO and then get to Zone 12 in time for them to pick the letter up, process it and get it into the Air Mail.

Why again doesn't Ossie just mail it from the GPO he is standing in when purchased?

2) Handwriting determinations are done using ORIGINAL MATERIALS. Where did you get this info Dave?

Could it have been from Holmes' recap of the morning? I wonder when, in the 1 hour it takes before he calls back - I wonder when the SS & FBI had an opportunity to make that comparison with the original PMO?

It wasn’t ten minutes that they hollered, “Eureka!” They had the stub!

I called it in immediately to the chief on the open line to Washington and said, “I’ve got the money order number that Oswald used to buy this gun, and according to the records up there, they had shipped it to this box that he had rented at the main office in Dallas at that time, which he later closed and opened another at the Terminal Annex because it was closer to the School Book Depository.”

So he said, “Well, we’ll run that right through the correlators or whatever they do up there.”

In about an hour, he called back and said, “We’ve got it! Both the FBI and the Secret Service labs have positively identified the handwriting as being that of Oswald.”

Any ideas? Any documentation on this hasty comparison or are you simply taking Holmes at his word?

3) Well that's one. The stamp on the back does appear similar to the Kleins stamp... but not identical.

4) An unsigned summary report is not the same as a signed affidavit Dave... The FBI can and did write whatever suited them in these "Summary" reports.

But let's look at what Wilmouth said and what the record shows.

He claims there were two items for $21.45 that day in the deposit from Kleins and that the first was an AMEX MO which he identifies by the preceeding and following amounts. The other $21.45 is claimed to be a PMO which his bank would have forwarded to FRB of Chicago.

Yet I see what may be SEVEN instances of $21.45 on that deposit which is dated one thing while the dlip is dated another.

In any case... Green arrows point to items which appear the same as the first $21.45. Where do you see a group total of $6,178 in this deposit Dave? The subtotal on the evidence says something else entirely... ???

Also - with a total of $13,827.98 we'd see yet another running total for $7,649.98. Where's that Dave?

Until you authenticate this deposit as being on the day in question - it's just some piece of paper. Your faith in it is heartwarming yet sadly not proof of anything but your beliefs.

5) It does not appear that the PMO in Evidence even has a new 9-digit ABA routing # or the older ####-#### 8-digit format. What's the ABA for this PMO Dave?

Section 7070 - Processing Old Style Money Orders

"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.

7050 -Processing Mutilated Money Orders

This section relates to the handling of mutilated paper money orders with ABA routing numbers 0000-0020 or 000000204.

7050.10 -Mutilated paper money orders must be grouped in batches not to exceed 200 documents in a batch. If the total number of mutilated items does not exceed 200, they may be handled as one batch. For larger quantities, make as many batches as necessary, not exceeding 200 in any one batch.

7050.20 -Insert a USPS Batch Locator Control Document at the beginning of each batch of mutilated money orders.

7050.30 -Prepare an adding machine listing of each batch showing the following information:

• FRB name or code at the top.
• The amount of each item.
• The total amount of the batch.
• FRB clearance date.
• Batch number.

7050.40 -Batches of the paper money orders that cannot be machine processed without first being MICR amount encoded may be delivered to the USPS representative without processing, provided the above requirements are essentially met.

7050.50 - The total amount of mutilated items should be entered on the PS Form 1901, code 110.

So Dave - which marks can you point to - are made by the FRB processing this PMO so the Postmaster could trace it back incase there's a problem? The PS Form 1901 the USPS would have kept... no can find?

The tapes related to this process? ANYTHING which can be pointed to on that PMO which shows it was processed by the US banking system or the USPS?

6) As for the PMO being found at 9:30 in Alexandria. and handed to SS SA PARKER at 10:10pm at Harold Marks Home.

- You are then admiting that HOLMES' story is a complete lie and that the PMO could not have been found based on the story he tells.

- WCD87 p89 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490#relPageId=89&tab=page tells us via the SS that the PMO was recovered in Kansas City

- WCD87 p94 only a few pages later, we learn that at 7:55pm in KC the SS SAIC learns that the PMO was found and conveys this info to KROZ.

At no point in this document does it claim the PMO was found 35 minutes later in VA. According to the Chicago SS office, the PMO was found in Kansas City as expected and as was looked for most the day.

At the top of this same page KROZ is told to keep looking in KC

If Harry Holmes was aware of the knowledge that PMO were sent to VA and was working with the SS... why do the SS SA's in KC along with the USPS employees continue looking in a place the USPS and/or Archive employees would know that PMOs were no longer sent there?

As usual David - you present conclusions as if they've been authenticated and corroborated when they are only accurate in your mind and to your belief system.

You need to PROVE the EVIDENCE YOU USE IS AUTHENTIC - otherwise it's just rhetoric. PROVE something Dave... anyone can vomit up unsubstantiated info.

Turn your vomit into something of value and authenticate the evidence Dave... just as you would expect anyone offering it to prove someone's guilt would demand...

thanks

[Guest]

5) It does not appear that the PMO in Evidence even has a new 9-digit ABA routing # or the older ####-#### 8-digit format. What's the ABA for this PMO Dave?

...

Section 7070 - Processing Old Style Money Orders

"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.

...

So Dave - which marks can you point to - are made by the FRB processing this PMO so the Postmaster could trace it back incase there's a problem? The PS Form 1901 the USPS would have kept... no can find?

The tapes related to this process? ANYTHING which can be pointed to on that PMO which shows it was processed by the US banking system or the USPS?

This whole section loses me. The "15-119/000" on the Klein's PMO is the "fractional" ABA routing number used on all PMOs in 1963. Sandy discussed this at some length on another thread. You then quote from the current Treasury Financial Manual, which describes how surviving punch-card PMOs should be processed. The current Treasury Financial Manual has special processing requirements for punch-card PMOs because they are now dinosaurs. They obviously would not have been dinosaurs in 1963 - they were then the state of the art. If the Post Office had a concern with the Klein's PMO in 1963, the PMO would have been located via the File Locator Number - which, following the assassination, it was. The "Pay to the order of the First National Bank of Chicago" endorsement, the File Locator Number and the fact that the PMO was located after the assassination precisely where it should have been, in the Federal Records Center, constitutes pretty much the ironclad proof that it was "processed by the US banking system." To preserve the conspiracy theory requires a cast of "creating the fake File Locator Number conspirators" and "placing the PMO within the Federal Records Center conspirators" (and perhaps even "making sure no one before John Armstrong noticed all of the 'obvious' technical problems with the PMO conspirators") - which takes the conspiracy into the realm of lunacy for any reasonable observer. The fact that no one before Armstrong noticed all of the "obvious" technical problems is a pretty strong indicator that they are not, in fact, problems.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Guest

[Hank Sienzant]

5) It does not appear that the PMO in Evidence even has a new 9-digit ABA routing # or the older ####-#### 8-digit format. What's the ABA for this PMO Dave?

​

It's right there next to the WARNING.. 15-119/000 ... in the old style format.

Hank

Edited December 22, 2015 by Hank Sienzant

[Sandy Larsen]

"The "bleed-thru" of the ink is a strong indication that postal money order 2,202,130,462, shown as CE 788, was not original card stock." -- John Armstrong

"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?" -- James DiEugenio

In neither case did the person say anything had been proven.

Right on the Armstrong website the following statement is made regarding the bleed-thru:

"NOTE: Serious researchers should be focusing attention on the inked postal stamps that appear on the front of the money order (Dallas, TX, Mar 12, 1963), the inked endorsement stamp (Klein's) and the inked initials and dates that appear on the back of this money order. An explanation is needed as to how ink from the postal stamp and ink from the initials/dates can "bleed" thru to the other side of the money order. Postal money orders were made from card stock similar to an index card or an IBM type punch card--between 90# and 110# paper. This paper stock was crisp, firm, and ink "bleed-thru" to the reverse side was virtually impossible. I don't understand why or how ink "bleed-thru" occurred on CE 788. The original postal money order disappeared long ago, and only FBI photographs of CE 788 remain. Who authorized and/or caused the disappearance of the original money order is unknown. Only black and white photographs remain. This ink "bleed-thru" deserves a valid explanation."

Armstrong said, "This ink 'bleed-thru' deserves a valid explanation." And now we have it.

No claim was made by Armstrong other than the bleed-thru appearing to show that CE 788 was not original card stock.And the claim was factual at the time.

Armstrong obviously didn't research this very well, or else he would have discovered the answer in the Warren Commission testimony, as cited previously here by DVP, wouldn't he?

There's the rub. I see a lot of allusions to Armstrong's research, but if he couldn't even discover why there was bleed through, then that calls into question how great a researcher he really is.

Doesn't it?

Hank

The paragraph about ink bleeding on the money order isn't in Armstrong's book. It does appear on his website, clearly as an afterthought. And if you read the paragraph you will see that he doesn't claim to have researched it, because he urges "serious researchers" to do so.

The quote I saw was:

"The "bleed-thru" of the ink is a strong indication that postal money order 2,202,130,462, shown as CE 788, was not original card stock." -- John Armstrong

That is wrong.

Right?

Hank

Hank,

DVP and I already had a mini-debate over the use of the words like "appears" and "indicates." If you care to read the debate, it begins at post 295 on this page:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22439&page=20

[Sandy Larsen]

"The "bleed-thru" of the ink is a strong indication that postal money order 2,202,130,462, shown as CE 788, was not original card stock." -- John Armstrong

"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?" -- James DiEugenio

In neither case did the person say anything had been proven.

Right on the Armstrong website the following statement is made regarding the bleed-thru:

"NOTE: Serious researchers should be focusing attention on the inked postal stamps that appear on the front of the money order (Dallas, TX, Mar 12, 1963), the inked endorsement stamp (Klein's) and the inked initials and dates that appear on the back of this money order. An explanation is needed as to how ink from the postal stamp and ink from the initials/dates can "bleed" thru to the other side of the money order. Postal money orders were made from card stock similar to an index card or an IBM type punch card--between 90# and 110# paper. This paper stock was crisp, firm, and ink "bleed-thru" to the reverse side was virtually impossible. I don't understand why or how ink "bleed-thru" occurred on CE 788. The original postal money order disappeared long ago, and only FBI photographs of CE 788 remain. Who authorized and/or caused the disappearance of the original money order is unknown. Only black and white photographs remain. This ink "bleed-thru" deserves a valid explanation."

Armstrong said, "This ink 'bleed-thru' deserves a valid explanation." And now we have it.

No claim was made by Armstrong other than the bleed-thru appearing to show that CE 788 was not original card stock.And the claim was factual at the time.

Armstrong obviously didn't research this very well, or else he would have discovered the answer in the Warren Commission testimony, as cited previously here by DVP, wouldn't he?

There's the rub. I see a lot of allusions to Armstrong's research, but if he couldn't even discover why there was bleed through, then that calls into question how great a researcher he really is.

Doesn't it?

Hank

The paragraph about ink bleeding on the money order isn't in Armstrong's book. It does appear on his website, clearly as an afterthought. And if you read the paragraph you will see that he doesn't claim to have researched it, because he urges "serious researchers" to do so.

The quote I saw was:

"The "bleed-thru" of the ink is a strong indication that postal money order 2,202,130,462, shown as CE 788, was not original card stock." -- John Armstrong

That is wrong.

Right?

Hank

It is incorrect to state that the bleed-thru was due to the postal money order being printed on paper thinner than the original card stock that PMOs at the time were printed on. The bleed-thru was instead caused by a chemical bath that was used for detecting fingerprints.

That was testified to by a witness before the WC. I forget the man's name.

Here is video that shows the process:

http://science.wonderhowto.com/how-to/reveal-latent-fingerprints-paper-other-surfaces-302464/

[Sandy Larsen]

The 1960 FRB circular stated, "and with respect to matters not coveredby such agreement, the provisions of Regulation J, this circular and our time schedules shall be deemed applicable to all postal money orders." This seems like rather odd language to use if the Agreement were "published in operating circulars" as you suggest. I don't feel a burden to "prove you wrong" because you are simply making an assumption that is, on its face, inconsistent with the FRB circular.

The Agreement is virtually irrelevant to the topic at hand. What is relevant is what commercial banks were instructed to do in 1963. And through FRB operating circulars, banks were instructed to endorse cash items. Postal money orders were in 1963, and still are, considered to be cash items in FRB operating circulars.

[Sandy Larsen]

How many more years will conspiracy theorists completely ignore these important paragraphs found in Commission Document No. 75? ....

David,

Bulk deposits like that have been made for at least the last fifty years. (Much longer than that, but I mean with the technology of the 1960s in place.) And checks are still being individually endorsed. So you're not making a good argument. Plus you haven't shown anything that indicates that bulk deposits didn't require individual bank stamps. You're just speculating it to be the case... and that is in spite of the evidence showing otherwise.

[Sandy Larsen]

But, Hank, it says in that very same paragraph of the regulation that....

"The endorsement of the sending bank should be dated and should show the American Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent type on both sides."

None of which is found on the CE788 Hidell money order.

But it's very likely (IMO) that the Hidell M.O. was part of a bulk transfer of postal money orders which was accompanied by a cash letter (deposit ticket), which very likely did have those stamps on it (i.e., the date and the ABA transit numbers).

To believe the Hidell M.O. is fraudulent is silly, especially when we KNOW it was found just exact where it should have been found in Alexandria/Washington.

And we also have information in CD75 coming from a First National Bank Vice President (Wilmouth) verifying that First National DID handle the $21.45 Postal Money Order in question.

How many more years will conspiracy theorists completely ignore these important paragraphs found in Commission Document No. 75? ....

The paragraph I am looking at says all that's necessary is an endorsement TO the bank. And we have that in the Kleins stamp.

It goes on to say that "The act of sending or deliver­ing a cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however, be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty of all prior endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is incorporated in the sending bank’s endorsement."

In other words, the FRB will accept money orders without any additional endorsements, and it's understood that the very act of submitting the money order for payment is the guarantee that the prior endorsements are valid on the part of the submitting bank (in this case, The First National Bank of Chicago.

Endorsements

13. All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar endorsement. Cash items will be accepted by us, and by other Federal Reserve Banks, only upon the understanding and condition that all prior endorsements are guaranteed by the sending bank. There should be incorporated in the endorsement of the sending bank the phrase, “ All prior endorsements guaranteed.” The act of sending or deliver­ing a cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however, be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty of all prior endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is incorporated in the sending bank’s endorsement. The endorsement of the sending bank should be dated and should show the American Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent type on both sides.

​You are correct that the money order doesn't have any additional endorsements. But per the language above, I'm not seeing where it needs any, as the very act of submitting the money order for payment is the guaranty that the sending bank (in this case, First National of Chicago) guarantees the item is valid.

Could the ABA number be the number specified on the Klein's stamp ("50 91144") right under the bank name?

It appears the FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO no longer exists.

http://www.nndb.com/company/096/000124721/

Hank

​

Hank,

Endorsements have more than one purpose. One is the guaranty that you point out is considered to be in place regardless of whether or not an express guaranty is included in the endorsement. Another purpose is to indicate the ABA and address of the sending bank. It is apparently for non-guaranty purposes that the bank endorsement is required.

BTW, keep in mind that whatever you interpret from that paragraph in the FRB operating circular, it will be applicable not only to postal money orders but to checks as well. Don't you remember way back when, when we were all young, that virtually every check had bank endorsements stamped on them? According to the operating circular cited, the same should have been true of PMOs as well. (Though, beginning with the PMOs of 1963, an FRB stamp appeared on the front side of the PMO in the form of a file locator number. This may well have been the only FRB stamp to appear on those PMOs. We don't know for certain.)