Klein's didn't start selling the 40" rifle until August, 1963

[Pat Speer]

40 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

That is odd.

He opened it and did not reply at all when returning it.

Why return it at all then?  Was that supposed to be a kind of disguised middle finger to you?

As I recall it was marked "Return to Sender". My initial thought was that someone at his office (perhaps his son or secretary) opened it and decided it wasn't worth showing to him. But I worried that perhaps I'd sent it to the wrong address. I double-checked the address. It was the right address, as far as I could tell. And there was nothing on it to indicate it was the office of a different Vincent Bugliosi, like "Sorry...wrong dude." 

Several years later, I spoke to Bugliosi at a book signing and offered him one of my DVDs. He said he'd watch it and get back to me. He said he didn't use the internet, but that if I gave him a card with my address on it, he'd drop me a note. So I put a card inside the DVD case. And I never heard back.

My take-away was that he wasn't remotely interested in a dialogue, and wasn't interested in learning anything new. If he had in fact opened my envelope or watched my DVD, he probably took a quick look and said "This complicates things. I'm better off pretending I never saw it." 

Edited August 16, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

49 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I don't have much respect for, or confidence in, people who switch from being a CTer to being an LNer.

That said, I thought that Gil should be shown evidence for your side given that he had shown evidence for his side.

 

I am fairly certain Mack never switched. I recall him confiding that he still suspected there was a second shooter captured in the Moorman photo and that the dictabelt supported this. From what I could grasp he thought Oswald was one of the shooters, but I never heard him say or saw him write that he thought there was only one shooter. 

If anyone can find a quote where he disavowed his long-held beliefs regarding Badgeman and the dictabelt I would be glad to be wrong. 

Edited August 16, 2022 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

Quote

DVP said:

When confronted with such proof of processing, the CTers just turn to something else they think looks suspicious. (Or: they'll simply say, as many have done since Lance's 2015 discovery, "Well, that FLN must have been added by the conspirators after Nov. 22.")

 

38 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Anybody could have printed the File Location Number on the postal money order (PMO). It means nothing.

There were no bank stamps on the PMO. Yet banks were required by federal law to be stamp PMOs when depositing them to a Federal Reserve Bank. And all PMOs had to be deposited to a Federal Reserve Bank.

Yep. Right on cue. Just as I predicted. The CTer is defeated in one area, so what does he do? He merely shifts the goal posts and tries to make something else look suspicious.

The FLN, of course, indicates that the Hidell PMO made it all the way to a Federal Reserve Bank after going through the hands of Klein's. Because it's only the FRB which marks the document with the FLN (File Locator Number).

But, naturally, CTers think the FLN is now phony too.

And what good would a handful of First National Bank markings do, Sandy? If they were on there, do you truly think that very many CTers would consider them to be legitimate markings? Would you?

Edited August 16, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

3 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Yep. Right on cue. The CTer is defeated in one area, so what does he do? He merely shifts the goal posts and tries to make something else look suspicious.

 

I've never questioned anything but the missing bank stamps. No change in goal posts.

 

3 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And what good would a handful of First National Bank markings do, Sandy? If they were on there, do you truly think that very many CTers would consider them to be legitimate markings? Would you?

 

If the bank stamps were there, I wouldn't be claiming that the money order was never cashed.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

20 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

If anyone can find a quote where he disavowed his long-held beliefs regarding Badgeman and the dictabelt I would be glad to be wrong. 

 

Well if that is all that was holding Mack to the CTer position, then I can't hold it against him if he switched. I mean, the Badgeman stuff is very weak and the dictabelt stuff is hard to understand. I'm surprised he was ever a CTer based on that. He needs to read some better books.

 

[Tom Gram]

7 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Yep. Right on cue. The CTer is defeated in one area, so what does he do? He merely shifts the goal posts and tries to make something else look suspicious.

The FLN, of course, indicates that the Hidell PMO made it all the way to a Federal Reserve Bank after going through the hands of Klein's. Because it's only the FRB which marks the document with the FLN (File Locator Number).

But, naturally, CTers think the FLN is now phony too.

And what good would a handful of First National Bank markings do, Sandy? If they were on there, do you truly think that very many CTers would consider them to be legitimate markings? Would you?

The thing that baffles me about the money order that is not one identical processed money order has apparently ever been seen for comparison to finally resolve the bank stamp debate for good. 

Regardless of stamp vs. no stamp, there are some non-trivial questions about the provenance of money order. Apparently the vanishing money order stub showed the time the money order was purchased - “early morning” on March 12th. Even if that was the only item of information on the stub besides the number, it should have been entered into evidence. Instead it disappeared forever thanks to everyone’s favorite friendly neighborhood Postal Inspector Harry Holmes. 

The whole timeline of the stub’s discovery and dissemination of the money order number has some weird inconsistencies. Supposedly Holmes found the stub around noon on Saturday, but Deputy Chief Postal Inspector Duggan in Washington supposedly wasn’t told about it for another four hours or so. Then the FBI is several hours behind everyone else and doesn’t find out about the stub until Saturday night, after the actual money order has already been located. The record on this suggests quite the cluster****; either that or something shady was going on. 

Another fun fact, both Alwyn Cole and James Cadigan concluded that Oswald filled out the money order based strictly on the handwriting on the form other than the Hidell signature. Neither of the two WC document examiners gave any testimony whatsoever about the Hidell signature on the form, which is more than a little odd considering the level of detail those guys testified to on other questioned documents. 

[Mark Ulrik]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I just gave you two examples which indicate the serial numbers repeated.

And I pointed out that they didn't pan out.

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The idea that say me, or Gil would have the ability to track down all the other ones, that is pure Von Peinism. How could an individual citizen, by himself, without any of the proper investigative power and aids do such a thing?  Its like asking, OK, if you think there was a hole in the back of Kennedy's head, dig him up and show it to us.  That is just nonsense.  As per Latimer, Gil showed you the quote from his own book.  When his fellow Oswald did it fanatics alerted him to the fact that he was hurting their case, he changed his story.

Please. You're making it sound like I was sending you and Gil on a wild-goose chase. Gil was one who made the claim that multiple C2766 rifles exist – which is only possible if you pretend that 2766 is the same as C2766 and that Lattimer's error (which he admitted) wasn't really an error. Or do you and Gil believe that an individual citizen like Lattimer had the "investigative power" to do what no one else has ever accomplished?

[Gil Jesus]

33 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

The thing that baffles me about the money order that is not one identical processed money order has apparently ever been seen for comparison to finally resolve the bank stamp debate for good. 

Regardless of stamp vs. no stamp, there are some non-trivial questions about the provenance of money order. Apparently the vanishing money order stub showed the time the money order was purchased - “early morning” on March 12th. Even if that was the only item of information on the stub besides the number, it should have been entered into evidence. Instead it disappeared forever thanks to everyone’s favorite friendly neighborhood Postal Inspector Harry Holmes. 

The whole timeline of the stub’s discovery and dissemination of the money order number has some weird inconsistencies. Supposedly Holmes found the stub around noon on Saturday, but Deputy Chief Postal Inspector Duggan in Washington supposedly wasn’t told about it for another four hours or so. Then the FBI is several hours behind everyone else and doesn’t find out about the stub until Saturday night, after the actual money order has already been located. The record on this suggests quite the cluster****; either that or something shady was going on. 

Another fun fact, both Alwyn Cole and James Cadigan concluded that Oswald filled out the money order based strictly on the handwriting on the form other than the Hidell signature. Neither of the two WC document examiners gave any testimony whatsoever about the Hidell signature on the form, which is more than a little odd considering the level of detail those guys testified to on other questioned documents. 

Bank stamps were used on postal money orders in those days as is evidenced by the referral to same ( “bank stamps are not regarded as endorsements” ) on the back of the money order.

The single stamp on the back was identified in testimony as the stamp of Klein’s.

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 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.
( 7 H 367 )

The stamp wasn’t an endorsement from a bank. It was the endorsement stamp of Klein’s Sporting Goods transferring the funds into its bank account. The money order was never paid by any financial institution. Had the money order been processed by the First National Bank of Chicago, the bank would have put its DATED stamp on it.

Financial institutions stamp checks and money orders in order to ensure that each institution pays only once on each item. Without the stamp, there’s no proof that the money was actually paid by the bank and credited to the customer’s account. The stamps also assist law enforcement in tracking finances in criminal cases.

This money order should have had on it the DATED stamps of all financial institutions that handled the document.

The proof of that is in how Oswald’s paychecks were handled.

The fact that it doesn’t is proof that it never passed through the Federal Reserve System.　

Postal Money Orders received by the First National Bank of Chicago, were then sent to the Federal Reserve Bank, also in Chicago. The First National Bank did NOT microfilm money orders. To confound the tracking of the money order, the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago kept records of money orders for only six months, which means that it too had no record of this particular money order.

At the time the money order would have been processed, 75% of money orders were being sent to Washington, D.C. and the other 25 % were being sent to Kansas City, Missouri. Lester Gohr of the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago provided the FBI with the addresses of both locations. ( CD 7, pg. 193 )

In fact, according to the US Postal Guide of 1925, banks were REQUIRED to put their stamps on the backs of money orders deposited in their institutions in order to get paid.

The money order with a stamp for Klein’s Sporting Goods for deposit into its account into the First National Bank of Chicago.

No evidence that it was received by the First National Bank of Chicago.
No evidence that it was received by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
No evidence that it was received by the postal money order clearing houses in either Kansas City or Washington, D.C.

And yet, this “magic money order” is able to find its way through the Federal Reserve System WITHOUT ANY PROOF IT WAS PAID by any of the financial institutions which handled it.

This is truly amazing.

Edited August 16, 2022 by Gil Jesus

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

The thing that baffles me about the money order that is not one identical processed money order has apparently ever been seen for comparison to finally resolve the bank stamp debate for good. 

 

The reason we have no PMOs that have been processed is because, unlike checks, there is no one to return them to. So the Post Office stored them. (Or maybe it was the Federal Reserve Bank that did that... I forget.) And after two years they were destroyed.

Back when Lance Payette and I had our epic debate over PMOs, we both came across one case of PMOs being taken out of storage, and that was because they were being used as evidence in a court case. I didn't think of this at the time, but that is yet one more argument for the need for bank stamps. Without bank stamps they could not be traced.

But that doesn't really matter. And it doesn't matter that we don't have any PMOs to compare the Oswald ones too. The bottom line is that federal law requires PMOs to be bank stamped when presented to a Federal Reserve Bank.

 

 

[David Von Pein]

https://web.archive.org/web/20160121141437/https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/afips/1966/5068/00/50680479.pdf

 

 

Edited August 17, 2022 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

43 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The bottom line is that federal law requires PMOs to be bank stamped when presented to a Federal Reserve Bank.

From one of the 2015 Money Order discussions:

HENRY SIENZANT SAID:

David,

Not sure if you caught this, but Sandy Larsen is confusing P.O. DISBURSEMENT money orders with P.O. CONSUMER money orders (like the one Oswald purchased).

He says "Here's the proof", then cites something that doesn't apply to Oswald's money order whatsoever:

Sandy wrote:

"From the Code of Federal Regulations, 39 CFR 762.29c ....

"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."

[End Quote.]

A disbursement money order is one the Post Office issues to pay its own bills... they disburse the money to various contractors who do repairs, or those who they buy stuff from.

See the prior page, section 762.13: "Disbursement Postal Money Orders are issued solely by Postal data centers and solely for the purpose of paying Postal Service obligations."

Also see that page, section 762.11(b): "Disbursement Postal Money Orders, unlike other postal money orders, bear on their face the phrase, "This special money order is drawn by the postal service to pay one of its own obligations"."

And see page 211, section 762.11(a): "Disbursement Postal Money Orders have words of negotiability -- "Pay to the Order of" -- printed on their face, while other postal money orders simply bear the words "Pay to" on their face."

Oswald's money order was clearly NOT a disbursement money order. Oswald's money order bears the words "pay to", so it was NOT a disbursement money order.

As always, there's sleight of hand when conspiracy theorists try to present evidence. They claim it's one thing, but it's another thing entirely. Either they don't know the difference, or they know the difference and are trying to pull a fast one.

Count your fingers when discussing the JFK assassination with conspiracy theorists.
 

Edited August 17, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

31 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

From one of the 2015 Money Order discussions:

HENRY SIENZANT SAID:

David,

Not sure if you caught this, but Sandy Larsen is confusing P.O. DISBURSEMENT money orders with P.O. CONSUMER money orders (like the one Oswald purchased).

He says "Here's the proof", then cites something that doesn't apply to Oswald's money order whatsoever:

Sandy wrote:

"From the Code of Federal Regulations, 39 CFR 762.29c ....

"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."

[End Quote.]

A disbursement money order is one the Post Office issues to pay its own bills... they disburse the money to various contractors who do repairs, or those who they buy stuff from.

See the prior page, section 762.13: "Disbursement Postal Money Orders are issued solely by Postal data centers and solely for the purpose of paying Postal Service obligations."

Also see that page, section 762.11(b): "Disbursement Postal Money Orders, unlike other postal money orders, bear on their face the phrase, "This special money order is drawn by the postal service to pay one of its own obligations"."

And see page 211, section 762.11(a): "Disbursement Postal Money Orders have words of negotiability -- "Pay to the Order of" -- printed on their face, while other postal money orders simply bear the words "Pay to" on their face."

Oswald's money order was clearly NOT a disbursement money order. Oswald's money order bears the words "pay to", so it was NOT a disbursement money order.

As always, there's sleight of hand when conspiracy theorists try to present evidence. They claim it's one thing, but it's another thing entirely. Either they don't know the difference, or they know the difference and are trying to pull a fast one.

Count your fingers when discussing the JFK assassination with conspiracy theorists.
 

 

If you click the link David you will see that my proof is regarding normal, everyday PMOs. Not disbursement PMOs.

 

[Charles Blackmon]

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

 

But evidence like this never fazes a staunch Anybody-But-Oswald CTer.

 

I am one of many here who believe there was a conspiracy, which may have involved LHO in some as yet undetermined way. I guess that makes me a CT-er, but there are too many unanswered questions about LHO to know exactly what his involvement was (patsy or conspirator). I am hoping by following the best threads and researchers at this site to one day get better answers than what we have so far.

[David Von Pein]

24 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If you click the link David you will see that my proof is regarding normal, everyday PMOs. Not disbursement PMOs.

A little more from 2015.....

DVP said:

I must say, this lengthy debate, featuring more ups and downs than an Otis elevator, has got to be the weirdest, most incredible odyssey I've ever been associated with when it comes to any sub-topic dealing with the JFK assassination. It's simply been unbelievable.

Victory (or so it seems). Then defeat. Then a (partial) victory---or so it seems. Then the rug gets pulled out from underneath somebody yet again in the very next post. Absolutely mind-boggling. It's endless. I've never seen anything like it in all my born days here at the CIA Disinfo Center at Langley. ~wink~

But at this point--as I reach for more aspirin while I wallow in my latest defeat (or so it seems) at the hands of Sandy Larsen regarding the "fine sort" matter--I want to repeat a couple of important things that I have mentioned earlier in this saga, which are things that, in my own opinion, prove the conspiracists are 100% wrong when they cry "That money order is a fake!" ....

"The TWO most important things (IMO) that establish the 1963 Hidell money order as being a legitimate and valid document are: Oswald's writing on the money order (as determined by multiple handwriting analysts in 1964 and 1978 -- Cole, Cadigan, McNally, and Scott) and the Klein's "Pay To The Order Of First National Bank" stamp on the back of the money order. So we KNOW from the above two things that Oswald handled and wrote on that money order and Klein's Sporting Goods handled and stamped the same document. And the above two things are true, IMO, even without any other bank markings present on the document." -- DVP

And let me also repeat this comment from several weeks ago in this discussion....

"As for the lack of any bank stamps appearing on the back of Oswald's postal money order, I don't have a definitive answer to explain it. But I'd be willing to bet the farm that there IS a reasonable and non-conspiratorial answer to explain the lack of markings on the back of that document without resorting to the conclusion that the money order was manufactured and faked by a group of conspirators in a complicated and intricate effort to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for John F. Kennedy's murder." -- DVP
 

Edited August 17, 2022 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Mark:

Like that one, an error, with the rifle in his possession.  😙

And somehow Tom Purvis' rifle number means nothing.

As does the 3 million MC rifles. 

Nice magic act.